UB Sets It Out Step-By-Step

bump Mung

Incomplete Nature begins by accepting what other theories try to deny: that, although mental contents do indeed lack these material-energetic properties, they are still entirely products of physical processes and have an unprecedented kind of causal power that is unlike anything that physics and chemistry alone have so far explained. Paradoxically, it is the intrinsic incompleteness of these semiotic and teleological phenomena that is the source of their unique form of physical influence in the world.

Mung

I'm sure semiosis was predicted by Darwin, even, if Darwin is read correctly. Mung

Mung, your #1410 and #1411 above are just too rich. Just think, it only took a couple of years and about 4000 comments over a dozen threads. Now its no big deal at all. The power of scientism is to assimilate facts and deny them in the same breath. Upright BiPed

still unrefuted Mung

hola Mung

hola UBiped,Mr.Mung its been awhile since i've posted anywhere, I figure i'll try to post here again since it looks like KeithS and RBill are posting here again. I'm trudging through this post trying to catch up, interesting thus far. at the Diogenes matrix math part. D can't actually think this is a valid counter here. junkdnathewhite

Still no recorded information to be found over at TSZ. Mung

As they were setting the blog back up over at TSZ, one wonders whether they stopped to ponder the physical requirements for the transfer of recorded information. Probably not. Mung

The emergence of the discipline of semiotics has encouraged us to see natural objects and entities as signs, pointing beyond themselves, representing and communicating themselves. - McGrath, Alister E. A Fine-Tuned Universe

Mung

Mung, okie. I'se got my 10 lb sledge hammer and 1" thick sharpened stake ready, just in case. Tip can be fire-hardened if necessary. KF kairosfocus

I don't think MG has been resurrected. I think that's just Joe living in the past. :) Mung

Joe: You mean that the MG sock-puppet persona has been resurrected? Looks like we need to re-hammer the stake through the heart for it. KF kairosfocus

mathgrrl:

I’m sure his “more formal” version will address every criticism raised here.

He only addresses VALID criticisms and no one there has posted any.

I’m personally looking forward to the answer to the question “Assuming your argument is sound, how exactly does it support ID?”

Why are you waiting, it has been answered. So we don't have any valid criticisms and to top it off we have another moron who can't even follow along. Joe

Semiosis wins. Mung

The concept of information is central both to genetics and evolutionary theory. - John Maynard Smith

Mung

What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, warm breath, nor a "spark of life". It is information, words, instructions... Think of a billion discrete digital characters... If you want to understand life think about digital technology. - Richard Dawkins

Mung

It's a tasty and nutritious word salad! Mung

HT: BA77

“In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes [Bar10]. Donald E. Johnson – Programming of Life – pg.51 – 2010

Mung

The epigenome consists of chemical compounds that modify, or mark, the genome in a way that tells it what to do, where to do it and when to do it. The marks, which are not part of the DNA itself, can be passed on from cell to cell as cells divide, and from one generation to the next. - Epigenomics Fact Sheet

What natural law determines the placement of these compounds? What is the evidence that the placement of these compounds is completely random? Is there a middle ground between determined and random that could be called arbitrary? Mung

... we have begun to glimpse the multilevel complexity found in the epigenome's storehouse of information. We can see that the living cell possesses vast riches of life-enabling codes, which go far beyond the spiral thread of DNA itself. Information, in a diversity of usable forms, is lodged in virtually every corner of the cell ... The mutual integration of these systems and layers of information is a marvel to behold. The Mysterious Epigenome: What Lies Beyond DNA

Mung

Allan Miller:

Soooo … yes, semiosis is real. Consider it dealt with. Organisms make and receive ‘signs'

Mung

Cubist@TSZ

As best I can tell, Mung, nobody hereabouts thinks this ‘semiosis’ thingie isn’t real.

lol Mung

Physics, Chemistry, Information. Are there yet higher levels waiting to be discovered? Will it have to wait until our own technology advances further so that we will have the language and concepts to understand what it is we are seeing? Mung

Thank you for your charitable contribution serious123. You might have gathered from the introduction that the writing was not a formal presentation, but merely a paragraph lifted from a blog comment, which the owner of UD then numbered and presented here. The fact that it has withstood all takers for the past several months (in more than one iteration here and elsewhere) is satisfactory. I apologize for not achieving the higher standards you suggest. A more formal argument will be presented at a later date. Upright BiPed

This is the same problem in biology that has led some biologists to move to multiverse as the odds are beyond insurmountable. However the argument is just so poorly written it almost seems like the writer is not a native english speaker. In order to write a convincing argument, careful attention must be paid to using precise language, yet simple formulations. Look at any of the most famous arguments by the greats and you'll see anyone can read them. The argument needs to be reduced to its common denominator--as it sits it is like 5+2-5+6-9+7-3+8-4+2-1 =8 when it should be more like 2+2+2+2=8 serious123

Desires, like ideas, are intentional; they point to something, like signs. - Peter Kreeft

Mung

'Look, science isn’t for everyone. Finger painting may be more your speed.' 'Painting by numbers', Joe. Give RB some technical credit. It's why I call myself, Axel.... Axel

onlooker did an internet search on my name "Mung" and in it found something so objectionable that she felt she could refuse all intellectual discourse from anyone using the name "Mung." Not a rational response, to be sure. But it served her purposes. Any excuse will do. Mung

Mung, would you please stop quoting facts?! It makes it so uncomfortable for our recalcitrant materialist friends. ---- BTW, I love your #1396. What say ye, onlooker, will you take up the challenge? Eric Anderson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code

A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.

It follows that there are no real codes. That pesky I word. Mung

Today theoretical biology has genetic, developmental, and evolutionary components, the central connective themes in modern biology, but also includes relevant aspects of computational biology, semiotics, and cognition research, and extends to the naturalistic philosophy of sciences.

The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology Gerd B. Muller, Gunter P. Wagner, and Werner Callebaut, editors Mung

RB:

In short, semiotic theory is an empirical bridge to nowhere, an empirical ship in a bottle.

To you and your ilk of scientifically illiterate dogmatists, I am sure that it is. To the rest of the world who understand that it makes all the difference in the world to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose by design or some stochastic process. Even though Stonehenge is made out of stones that mother nature produced, we could never understand the structure by looking at it as something mother nature produced.

It goes nowhere, as it has no empirical purchase on only issue it purports to address.

With you at its helm I am surprised it can even stay afloat. Look, science isn't for everyone. Finger painting may be more your speed. Joe

Forget the evidence, it's the argument we can't stand. Mung

From 571 comments, and 91 days ago...

Onlooker, Your entire involvement here has been an attempt to massage over the unambiguous definitions given in the argument, in the hopes that you can make them malleable for a counter-argument. This has already been discussed here and here among other places. Unfortunately for you, your strategy has been transparent for the entire duration of your stay. You are now left with nothing but to return here and use the repetition of your attempts as an opportunity to sling more insults. It’s all you have left. As I have already pointed out, it’s a terrible way to have to protect your worldview. - – - – - – - – - – - – - Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. Protocol: An arrangement of matter that physically establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between a representation and its effect. Materially arbitrary: The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system). Evoke: The representation can evoke an effect within a system, but because it is materially arbitrary to that effect, it cannot determine what that effect will be – the effect is physically determined by the protocol alone. - – - – - – - – - – - – - These two arrangements of matter are ubiquitous in any transfer of recorded information, and they must operate as described in order to accomplish what must be accomplished – the transfer of form via a material medium. These objects are both a logical necessity and a universal empirical observation. You cannot refute them, and your unending attempts to redefine them (with added ambiguity) have grown stale, even on your own side of the fence.

Upright BiPed

...it is clear that a capacity to encode information is of decisive importance for evolution in general and evolvability in particular. - Alister E. McGrath

Mung

No time for trolling. Such a shame. onlooker, Please don't bother to return until you know the meaning of the word arbitrary. Once you've learned the meaning of the word, select an arbitrary day and time for your return. Then construct a post where the letters used are determined by physical law or by a stochastic distribution. Mung

Upright BiPed, This is a courtesy note to explain my recent lack of participation. Over the past few weeks I've been focused on work, spending time with my family on the holidays, and more work. I do not anticipate having time to devote to this discussion for the near future. Given your resistance to answering direct questions, that's unlikely to yield significantly different results from my active participation. I will note for now that your original post is still word salad, you fail to use terms consistently even on those few occasions where you have agreed on definitions, and you obviously have no interest in clarifying your position such that others can discuss it with you. It's quite clear that preventing your ideas from being exposed to scrutiny and challenge, while still claiming to have an "argument", is your actual goal. I'll check in from time to time to see if you have developed any integrity, but I'm not holding my breath. Even if you continue to hide from my questions, the 800 pound gorilla in the room remains: Granting for the sake of argument that your position is correct, how does it support ID? onlooker

The problem of semiosis isn't going away. If anything, it's going to get worse. You'd think the critics would want to deal with it sooner rather than later. Or next they'll be saying it's always been part of the Darwinian paradigm. Nothing new here. Move along. Mung

A new year, and the argument in the OP still stands unrefuted. The more we learn about life, the more semiotic it seems. The more we learn about Darwinian evolution, the more it appears to depend upon semiosis. Happy New Year! Mung

If modern science ever came up with an agreed definition of life I can just hear Reciprocating Bill... It's not based upon observations. What good is it? It's not as if we need to know what to look for when looking for signs of life "out there." Mung

..."begs the question of whether semiotic theory contributes to our understanding of the system by means of which DNA is translated in to proteins, and therefore what is required of a causal account of the emergence of that system.

The argument in the OP provides a coherent model for the transer and translation of recorded information. The argument is built on universal observation and logical necessity. It then demonstrates that this model is faithfully exemplified in the processing of genetic information. Any "causal account of the emergence of that system" will be required to demonstrate the material establishment of materially-arbitrary relationships, as such relationships are fundamental to the system by which "DNA is translated in to proteins". Knowling what is required of a proposition in order to be successful is an inseparable contribution to knowing if it was successful. Upright BiPed

Surely the system in the OP doesn't actual exist anywhere. at least not any place where's it's actually been observed. And far be it from any scientist to develop a definition for the phenomena under observation rather than merely a description. Mung

UB has characterized his opening post as presenting “observations” followed by logical conclusions. But there are no observations in the OP above.

Ah yes. Let us not forget another round of the ridiculously-strained and notoriously-idiosyncratic parsing of words. What better way to deal with observations than to simply say they don't exist? - - - - - - - - - "Observation is the most pervasive and fundamental practice of all the modern sciences, both natural and human. Its instruments include not only the naked senses but also tools such as the telescope and microscope, the questionnaire, the photographic plate, the notebook, the glassed-in beehive, and myriad other ingenious inventions designed to make the invisible visible, the evanescent permanent, the abstract concrete." - Histories of Scientific Observation (ISBN: 9780226136790) - - - - - - - - What do observation reports describe? One answer to this question assumes that observation is a perceptual process so that to observe is to look at, listen to, touch, taste, or smell something, attending to details of the resulting perceptual experience. Observers may have the good fortune to obtain useful perceptual evidence simply by noticing what's going on around them, but in many cases they must arrange and manipulate things to produce informative perceptible results. In either case, observation sentences describe perceptions or things perceived ... so much so that Carl Hempel could characterize the scientific enterprise as an attempt to predict and explain the deliverances of the senses (Hempel 1952, 653). - Stanford edu Upright BiPed

Ah, the return of the onlooker effect. Mung

Perhaps a more prepared materialist will come along and actually attack the observations themselves.

UB has characterized his opening post as presenting "observations" followed by logical conclusions. But there are no observations in the OP above. Instead, we find a definition followed by a string of assertions. Specifically, “A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system” is a definition, not an observation. Everything that follows in the OP is built one way or another upon that definition. But definitions are not self-evidently useful or correct. The usefulness of a definition is seen in the phenomena in the world that are picked out out by that definition. Some definitions call out referents and classes in a way that “carve nature at the joints.” Others don’t. Those that do can be useful conceptual tools and may become components of testable scientific hypotheses. Those that don’t have less use or are misleading. Ultimately, the scientific usefulness of a definition, and of hypotheses that may be built upon it, lies in its ability to generate testable empirical predictions. That is how theories become responsive to evidence and guide research. Semiotic theory as articulated above is neither responsive to evidence in that sense, nor capable of guiding research in a way that is scientifically useful. We know that because UB has told us so. UB’s reasoning in the OP ends with this conclusion: “The transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information.” UB has elsewhere stated, “The final conclusion of this Semiotic Argument is that a) genetic information observably demonstrates a semiotic system, and b) it therefore will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state.” It is fair to ask, “so what?” The follow-on questions are obvious (although not so easily asked), and pull for the empirical consequences of those conclusions. UB telegraphed their importance by ignoring them for months, and continues to telegraph that importance by attempting to unsay what he obviously wishes he hadn’t said, even at the expense of uttering flatly contradictory statements. Two of those questions are: - What class of mechanism does semiotic theory assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? - What class of mechanism does semiotic theory assert cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?” In response UB has affirmed: - It does not follow from semiotic theory “per se” that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) a semiotic state. - Nor does it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create a semiotic state. UB objects that in posing these questions I’m “asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do.” He is right about that. I am asking the argument to do something that demonstrates scientific value in the sense that I describe in my initial remarks above. Semiotic theory has no such value because it is not intended to have such value. No wonder UB objects. The third and perhaps most important question one could ask in evaluating the theory in a scientific context is the following: - What does a semiotic state entail that a contemporary understanding of the physicochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? This goes directly to both the scientific testability and the utility of semiotic theory. Semiotic theory might yet be found useful if unique predictions arise from it that can guide research. But semiotic theory does not generate unique entailments beyond those that follow from contemporary understanding of the physicochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins: RB:

For “It displays the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state” to improve upon the current description, testable empirical consequences must follow from that further characterization beyond those that follow from the physiochemical description. As you say, “Like, what it entailed?”

UB in response:

What you say here is flatly untrue. The argument presented above needn’t do any more than it does; it employs universal observation and logical necessity to establish what is materially necessary for the transfer of recorded information. But you want to impose on it questions that it does not answer.

Semiotic theory fails to generate testable empirical consequences. UB has told us so; to ask for testable empirical consequences is to impose on it questions that it does not answer. UB nevertheless insists that semiotic theory can be useful in the sense that the fire tetrahedron is useful. After all, he asks, am I suggesting that we should attempt to apprehend a causal mechanism without understanding what is necessary of it? That, of course, begs the question of whether semiotic theory contributes to our understanding of the system by means of which DNA is translated in to proteins, and therefore what is required of a causal account of the emergence of that system. Such begging aside, UB constructed a illustration in which I am on trial for arson and in my defense utilizes elements of the fire tetrahedron. He insisted that semiotic theory can be similarly useful, in many ways for many people, in evaluating hypotheses regarding the origin of the system by means of which DNA is translated into proteins. Accordingly, I’ve twice asked UB to provide a similar illustration of the empirical use of the entailments of semiotic theory, at the same (very low) level of detail as he supplied in his one-paragraph arson fantasy. His reply is that the question is “obtuse and ignorant.” I suspect he in fact is unable to construct such an example. But perhaps UB has an illustration up his sleeve that will enable him to rescue at least this role for semiotic theory. It is for the forgoing reasons that I argue that semiotic theory as UB articulates it is useless in a scientific context. It’s only conclusion is “it therefore will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state,” yet it fails to even broadly constrain the possible mechanisms either by requiring agency or excluding unguided processes. It generates no testable entailments. Its advocate declines to provide examples illustrating remaining possible empirical applications. In short, semiotic theory is an empirical bridge to nowhere, an empirical ship in a bottle. It goes nowhere, as it has no empirical purchase on only issue it purports to address. Reciprocating Bill

“clairvoyant hubris…” Weirdo.

You are not capable of reading my mind when I asked the questions leading to this argument. Those questions - if valuable themselves and successfully answered - establish the usfulness of the answers (i.e. not you). Feel free to sling insults, I am not the one in the materialist hat arguing that the accurately-described material conditions of a system are usless in understanding it. Perhaps a more prepared materialist will come along and actually attack the observations themselves, given that you are unable. Upright BiPed

RB,

UB: As for usefullness, you have already acknowledged that an accurate description of the system is a “crucial element” in undestanding it. RB: Of course. But not that semiotic theory usefully contributes to that description. See the difference?

Yes I do, and I think most others do as well. When you respond to critique, you deliberately stay clear of the critical point being made. It's a defense mechanism, forced upon you by the unacknowledged need to protect your position from evidence and reason. Here is the critical point you selectively avoided in your last post:

As for usefullness, you have already acknowledged that an accurate description of the system is a “crucial element” in undestanding it. You only want to equivocate on that assessment when the description of the system turns to its semiotic reality, but you have done nothing to demonstrate that the semiotic decription is inaccurate, and therefore have done nothing to demonsrtate that a semiotic description of the process of protein synthesis is useless to biology. Can you transfer and translate the information contained in DNA without an arrangement of matter to evoke a response within the system? Can you do so without a second arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its resulting effect? Is the arbitrary relationship between the first arrangement and the resulting effect a necessary component to achieve the result? Only by answering these kinds of questions can you make your claim meaningful in any way. Thus far you have been unwilling to take on this task, making your equivocation of “cruicial element” a strategic necessity, and your claim of “uselessness” a transparently obvious deception.

Upright BiPed

UB:

If you brought a thermometer to a geometry class in order to measure the degrees in an angle, you would be admonished for using the wrong tool.

Which is exactly what you've done, and what I've done. You've brought a thermometer to a geometry class - a tool devoid of usable empirical implications to bear upon a scientific question. Upon receiving the admonishment even you recommend, you spit out your medicine and assert "you've brought the wrong tool" is "a patently false claim." But it is, in fact, the wrong tool. I stated:

semiotic theory’s inability to answer the questions posed above establishes its uselessness in a scientific context. (new emphasis)

UB responded:

The question to which the argument in the OP was posed was “what are the material conditions necessary to transfer and translate recorded information”. I know this as an unassailable fact because I am the specific individual who posed the question. I am not certain what level of clairvoyant hubris you are attempting to demonstrate here, but I can assure you that this was the question asked.

Now you're simply not tracking the conversation. 'The questions posed above' to which I refer - the questions I've "imposed": - Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? - Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?” - What does a semiotic state entail that a contemporary understanding of the physicochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? - My twice repeated request that you provide an illustration of the empirical use of the entailments of semiotic theory at the same (very low) level of detail as you supplied in your one-paragraph arson fantasy. Your responses (in the last instance, your non-response) reflect semiotic theory's geometric uselessness.

As for usefullness, you have already acknowledged that an accurate description of the system is a “crucial element” in undestanding it.

Of course. But not that semiotic theory usefully contributes to that description. See the difference?

"clairvoyant hubris..."

Weirdo. Reciprocating Bill

Well this should be interesting. Your job is to argue that the inability of a thermometer to tell you how many degrees are in an angle is a valid argument against it’s ability to tell you what temperature it is.

So he's using a semiotic system to argue against the utility of semiotic systems? Mung

Bill, we're stall waiting for you to address #1342. Mung

RB at 1379,

UB: Bill deliberately reposts the same quote over and over, but he knows the falsity of the statement doesn’t turn on whether my argument does or doesn’t demonstrate a particular class of cause. The falsity of the claim is tied to Bill asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do. A thermometer cannot tell you how many degrees are in an angle. Claiming that “it can’t” is factually true. Claiming that “it can’t” as an argumentative strategy against the thermometer, is a patently false claim. UB: I want you to argue that ‘asking an argument to answer a question it was not intended to answer’ is a valid defense against the actual claim it makes. RB: By all means. In fact, by means of your own analogy

Well this should be interesting. Your job is to argue that the inability of a thermometer to tell you how many degrees are in an angle is a valid argument against it's ability to tell you what temperature it is. Lets see how you do it:

Unless you’ve brought the thermometer to a geometry class, in which case “it can’t” is both true and devastating, as it establishes the uselessness of the thermometer in that context.

Nonsense. If you brought a thermometer to a geometry class in order to measure the degrees in an angle, you would be admonished for using the wrong tool. That does nothing whatsoever to invalidate the ability of the thermometer to measure tempurature. You would be the flaw in that scenario, not the usefulness of the tool.

Which is exactly analogous to the state of affairs here, as semiotic theory’s inability to answer the questions posed above establishes its uselessness in a scientific context.

The question to which the argument in the OP was posed was “what are the material conditions necessary to transfer and translate recorded information”. I know this as an unassailable fact because I am the specific individual who posed the question. I am not certain what level of clairvoyant hubris you are attempting to demonstrate here, but I can assure you that this was the question asked. And the argument which you've been unable to refute is the direct result of that question. Your repeated attempt to impose your own questions onto that argument would simply be judged as invalid logic - if you weren't doing it as a strategic manuever. As it stands, it is a deliberate intellectual deception on your part. As for usefullness, you have already acknowledged that an accurate description of the system is a “crucial element” in undestanding it. You only want to equivocate on that assessment when the description of the system turns to its semiotic reality, but you have done nothing to demonstrate that the semiotic decription is inaccurate, and therefore have done nothing to demonsrtate that a semiotic description of the process of protein synthesis is useless to biology. Can you transfer and translate the information contained in DNA without an arrangement of matter to evoke a response within the system? Can you do so without a second arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its resulting effect? Is the arbitrary relationship between the first arrangement and the resulting effect a necessary component to achieve the result? Only by answering these kinds of questions can you make your claim meaningful in any way. Thus far you have been unwilling to take on this task, making your equivocation of “cruicial element” a strategic necessity, and your claim of “uselessness” a transparently obvious deception. Upright BiPed

And seeing that Reciprocating Bill's position, unguided evolution, is totally useless in a scientific context, he knows all about that uselessness. Unfortunately he doesn't know anything about usefulness and couldn't indentify something useful if his life depended on it. Joe

UB:

I want you to argue that ‘asking an argument to answer a question it was not intended to answer’ is a valid defense against the actual claim it makes.

By all means. In fact, by means of your own analogy: UB:

A thermometer cannot tell you how many degrees are in an angle. Claiming that “it can’t” is factually true. Claiming that “it can’t” as an argumentative strategy against the thermometer, is a patently false claim.”

Unless you've brought the thermometer to a geometry class, in which case "it can't" is both true and devastating, as it establishes the uselessness of the thermometer in that context. Which is exactly analogous to the state of affairs here, as semiotic theory's inability to answer the questions posed above establishes its uselessness in a scientific context. Reciprocating Bill

For it is an empirical scientific fact that the equivalent of measuring processes do undoubtedly take place in every living system, and this basic semiotic activity alone amply justifies the study of living systems as semiotic entities.

Mung

Its [Biosemiotics] main challenge, as we have seen, is to introduce meaning in biology, on the grounds that organic codes and processes of interpretation are fundamental components of the living world. Biosemiotics has become in this way the leading edge of the research of the fundamentals of life, and is a young exciting field on the move. - Introduction to Biosemiotics

Mung

UB: It’s apparent from your disengagement that you do not wish to argue the point presented in 1351. As is typical of rhetorical defense, your position has been defeated by the logic you ignored in contriving it. RB: This from the guy who fled precisely these questions for months, only engaged them when they were placed right under his nose, and is now defending himself by changing the definition of “true” and “false” as a way to unsay what he has already said.

Yet another lavish positioning statement! Point 1: I freely spent over two months arguing over your idiosyncratic use of the term “entailment” where you insisted that an entailment could only refer to the testable product of a thing, but not the existence of thing. This ended only when you were forced to concede that the existence of a thing quite obviously entailed the necessary conditions of its existence, and that my referring to those material conditions as entailments was entirely valid. My question to you (which you are responding to in the above quote) was not even a part of that conversation, so I hardly “fled” from it. As an aside, your positioning of my departure from TSZ as something I “fled from” misses the reality of the situation by a country mile. After two months of pointless attack, you conceded that the basis of your attack (your own idiosyncratic use of “entailment”) was in fact invalid. You did so by agreeing that my use (i.e. the standard dictionary use) of “entailment” was correct after all (i.e. June 2012 ”Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment” … I take your point.”). Your follow-on response at the time was the same as it is now - uvas agrias - and I was by no means obligated to entertain your unfortunate disposition. Referring to that as “fled” is opportunistically delusional. Point 2: No one is changing the definitions of true and false, Bill. The question to you is simple: If there is an argument which cannot be refuted with logic or evidence, is it then valid or invalid to attack that argument by deliberately and knowingly forcing it to answer a question it was never intended to answer? This was the question raised in my post 1351, where I asked you to put your position on the line and “Argue it out”.

From #1351: Bill deliberately reposts the same quote over and over, but he knows the falsity of the statement doesn’t turn on whether my argument does or doesn’t demonstrate a particular class of cause. The falsity of the claim is tied to Bill asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do. A thermometer cannot tell you how many degrees are in an angle. Claiming that “it can’t” is factually true. Claiming that “it can’t” as an argumentative strategy against the thermometer, is a patently false claim.” Argue it out.

If you are objecting to my use of the word “false” in this context, then I am certainly willing to entertain whatever suitable word you’d like to offer in its place. What word best suits a situation where someone simply cannot refute a claim made in an argument, so they insist the argument must address some other claim as a deliberate strategy against the claim they cannot refute? Would “incoherent” or “illogical” or “specious” or “phony” or “fallacious” or merely “unscientific” suit you better? I’ll let you suggest whatever word you wish, but more importantly, I want you to argue that ‘asking an argument to answer a question it was not intended to answer’ is a valid defense against the actual claim it makes. Set aside your positioning statements and sour grapes just long enough to do that. You can always go back to doing what you’ve been doing. Upright BiPed

UB:

It’s apparent from your disengagement that you do not wish to argue the point presented in 1351. As is typical of rhetorical defense, your position has been defeated by the logic you ignored in contriving it.

This from the guy who fled precisely these questions for months, only engaged them when they were placed right under his nose, and is now defending himself by changing the definition of "true" and "false" as a way to unsay what he has already said.

Bill deliberately reposts the same quote over and over, but he knows the falsity of the statement doesn’t turn on whether my argument does or doesn’t demonstrate a particular class of cause. The falsity of the claim is tied to Bill asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do. A thermometer cannot tell you how many degrees are in an angle. Claiming that “it can’t” is factually true. Claiming that “it can’t” as an argumentative strategy against the thermometer, is a patently false claim.” Argue it out.

UB has characterized his opening post as presenting observations followed by logical conclusions. But there are no observations in the OP above. Instead, we find a definition followed by a string of assertions. Specifically, "A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system" is a definition, not an observation. Everything that follows in the OP is built one way or another upon that definition. But definitions are not self-evidently useful or correct. The usefulness of a definition is seen in the phenomena in the world that are picked out out by that definition. Some definitions call out referents and classes in a way that “carve nature at the joints.” Others don’t. Those that do can be useful conceptual tools and may become components of testable scientific hypotheses. Those that don’t have less use or are misleading. Ultimately, the scientific usefulness of a definition, and of hypotheses that may be built upon it, lies in its ability to generate testable empirical predictions. That is how theories become responsive to evidence and guide research. Semiotic theory as articulated above is neither responsive to evidence in that sense, nor capable of guiding research in a way that is scientifically useful. We know that because UB has told us so. UB's reasoning in the OP ends with this conclusion: "The transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information." UB has elsewhere stated, "The final conclusion of this Semiotic Argument is that a) genetic information observably demonstrates a semiotic system, and b) it therefore will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state." It is fair to ask, "so what?" The follow-on questions are obvious (although not so easily asked), and pull for the empirical consequences of those conclusions. UB telegraphed their importance by ignoring them for months, and continues to telegraph that importance by attempting to unsay what he obviously wishes he hadn't said, even at the expense of uttering flatly contradictory statements. Two of those questions are: - What class of mechanism does semiotic theory assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? - What class of mechanism does semiotic theory assert cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?" In response UB has affirmed: - It does not follow from semiotic theory "per se" that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) a semiotic state. - Nor does it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create a semiotic state. UB objects that in posing these questions I'm "asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do." He is right about that. I am asking the argument to do something that demonstrates scientific value in the sense that I describe in my initial remarks above. Semiotic theory has no such value because it is not intended to have such value. No wonder UB objects. The third and perhaps most important question one could ask in evaluating the theory in a scientific context is the following: - What does a semiotic state entail that a contemporary understanding of the physicochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? This goes directly to both the scientific testability and the utility of semiotic theory. Semiotic theory might yet be found useful if unique predictions arise from it that can guide research. But semiotic theory does not generate unique entailments beyond those that follow from contemporary understanding of the physicochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins: RB:

For “It displays the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state” to improve upon the current description, testable empirical consequences must follow from that further characterization beyond those that follow from the physiochemical description. As you say, “Like, what it entailed?”

UB in response:

What you say here is flatly untrue. The argument presented above needn’t do any more than it does; it employs universal observation and logical necessity to establish what is materially necessary for the transfer of recorded information. But you want to impose on it questions that it does not answer.</blockquote.

Semiotic theory fails to generate testable empirical consequences. UB has told us so; to ask for testable empirical consequences is to impose on it questions that it does not answer. UB nevertheless insists that semiotic theory can be useful in the sense that the fire tetrahedron is useful. After all, he asks, am I suggesting that we should attempt to apprehend a causal mechanism without understanding what is necessary of it? That, of course, begs the question of whether semiotic theory contributes to our understanding of the system by means of which DNA is translated in to proteins, and therefore what is required of a causal account of the emergence of that system. Such begging aside, UB constructed a illustration in which I am on trial for arson and in my defense utilizes elements of the fire tetrahedron. He insisted that semiotic theory can be similarly useful, in many ways for many people, in evaluating hypotheses regarding the origin of the system by means of which DNA is translated into proteins. Accordingly, I've twice asked UB to provide a similar illustration of the empirical use of the entailments of semiotic theory, at the same (very low) level of detail as he supplied in his one-paragraph arson fantasy. His reply is that the question is "obtuse and ignorant." I suspect he in fact is unable to construct such an example. But perhaps UB has an illustration up his sleeve that will enable him to rescue at least this role for semiotic theory. It is for the forgoing reasons that I argue that semiotic theory as UB articulates it is useless in a scientific context. It's only conclusion is "it therefore will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state," yet it fails to even broadly constrain the possible mechanisms either by requiring agency or excluding unguided processes. It generates no testable entailments. Its advocate declines to provide examples illustrating remaining possible empirical applications. In short, semiotic theory is an empirical bridge to nowhere, an empirical ship in a bottle. It goes nowhere, as it has no empirical purchase on only issue it purports to address. Reciprocating Bill

UB and Mung, thanks for your replies. I always struggle with making what to me is complex into something concise, versus being long-winded and hard to follow. UB confirmed for me what I had suspected- that some number of ribosomes and associated machinery are shared with the daughter cell. One thing I am not quite clear on is if the information system properties are a necessary precursor to the synthesis of any and all of the machinery involved in the receipt/retrieval of the stored information. Not that this will clear it all up for me, but it will move me in the right direction- I realize it is extremely complicated. This has significant bearing on how I might conceptualize the introduction of information processing capabilities in cells and their precursors. I am inclined to assume that very few processes in the cell's entire life cycle can be reduced to mechanics sans the information processing apparatus. If there were a conceptual pathway for mechanical systems to handle the copying and reading of information (with whichever various mechanisms introducing information change... all irrelevant to this point), from the origin of life up until now - or even from some sort of prokaryotes until now- then I'd think common descent RM/NS advocates might have a small, tiny amount of breathing room. Because at least then you have a core part of what is doing the work of the theory being reduced to mechanical processes enveloping, or facilitating, everything else (potentially anyway). But it seems to me that even this scenario would do very little to solve the core problem: Namely, how within the confines of NDE theory (along with the generous scenario of a mechanical information storage and retrieval system (self-replication and whichever forms of mutation being key parts of the storage I'd think)), the primary information processing attributes could have originated, namely language and the information it describes existing arbitrarily with respect to the medium and without any physical necessity giving rise to it. From what I gather though, the generous scenario described is unrealistic, as even the information processing system itself exists "on top of" ***prior information and its arbitrarily descriptive language. I guess this must be one of those ways in which evolution evolved. (I know I have seen that phrase before- "evolution evolved") ***one possible loophole: I am aware that various organelles, including ribosomes, are present in the human ovum. Not that this fact does anything but make analysis of the system as a whole, over time, more complicated. I don't see it making the explanation of the arrival of information content and information processing apparatus any easier. MrMosis

You are voices in the wilderness, UDers, crying out for every valley of ignorance to be filled with understanding, and every mountain and hill of nonsense to be be brought low; and the crooked to be made straight, and the rough ways to be made smooth and erudite;... Sisyphus didn't have such a thankless task. Axel

That's what comes of trying to argue with people who worship things their own hands have made, so to speak. Pity Moses when he came down from the mountain. Axel

It was just laughable how these people were insinuating that “Semiotic Theory” was something you made up or something that was exclusive to you.

Yes, but I don't think it was "semiosis" so much that they objected to. They've been hand-waiving away semiosis for years. What they don't appreciate is having the real-world material consequences of information transfer laid out in a coherent argument they couldn't refute. Such is the material evidence. They also don't like my demonstration that an irreducibly complex core is fundamentally required in order to translate information from an information-bearing medium. Again, such is the evidence. Rebutals such as "it's just an analogy" or "when we say 'information' we know what we are talking about" are hereby refuted by observation and logic. What is left for the materialist to explain is how a formal system, requiring a fundamental coordination of materially-arbitrary objects, can come into being prior to the onset of informational organization and contraint. Upright BiPed

Eventually, the discovery of the genetic code suggested that the cell itself has a semiotic structure, and the goal of biosemiotics became the idea that all living creatures are semiotic systems. - Introduction to Biosemiotics

Now if we can just deny the genetic code... Mung

The vision of nature as an intelligible place has nourished confidence in the scientific project ever since the times of the Enlightenment. One prominent source of this belief was in Thomas Aquinas' teaching in the 13th century which strongly emphasized the inner connection between the two great books, the book of God, i.e., the Bible, and the book of nature. The will of God manifested itself in the creation as well as in the Bible and therefore reading the "Book of Nature" was a necessary supplement to reading of "The Book of God." That God in his benevolence would not have created nature as an unruly and lawless place seemed obvious to most Christian thinkers. - Jesper Hoffmeyer

Introduction to Biosemiotics: The New Biological Synthesis Not to pull this thread off topic, but perhaps it is this view that God's revelation is not restricted to the Bible alone that divides many IDists from Creationists. Mung

Mung, Thanks for your many quotes, and participation.

I'm just a toad. :) But thank you. I think you've already discerned that I have an extensive library. I wish I had a memory to match! If I can ever be of assistance in making something available do ask. It was just laughable how these people were insinuating that "Semiotic Theory" was something you made up or something that was exclusive to you. There's just no substitute for ignorance! Mung

Reciprocating Bill tried again over at TSZ:

Walker and Davies early state a definition of a Darwinian process:

Darwinian evolution applies to everything from simple software programs, molecular replicators, and memes, to systems as complex as multicellular life and even potentially the human brain – therefore spanning a gamut of phenomena ranging from artificial systems, to simple chemistry, to highly complex biology. The power of the Darwinian paradigm is precisely its capacity to unify such diverse phenomena, particularly across the tree of life – all that is required are the well-defined processes of replication with variation, and selection.

Mung, do you agree with this bolded definition?

My response:

No. For one, I don’t believe that software programs are Darwinian. Nor do I believe the processes they [Walker and Davies] refer to are well-defined, particularly with regard to the various phenomena they list.

So RB appears to make an attempt at picking up the mantle of keiths. But pretty weak so far. Mung

Another way of asking might be something like, “Where do ribosomes come from? Does their construction also necessitate the prior functioning of the information processing system, and all of its requisite parts, including the arbitrary nature of where the information content meets the physical world?”

MrMosis, In the off chance that you are still following this thread, I will offer an answer to your question. In broad terms, when a cell divides a copy of the genetic information from the parent cell is copied for the daughter cell. This includes the information for the synthesis of ribosomes and all the other necessary components of gene expression. Following that copying process, during actual cell division, ribosomes and other cellular machinery (already contained in the parent cell) are divided between the parent and daughter, giving the daughter the capacity to sustain itself from the information provided by the parent. - - - - - - - - - Mung, Thanks for your many quotes, and participation. - - - - - - - - - Alan, It's a little late in the day to be playing the "I don't understand" card. Biosemiosis is an observed fact, as surely as gravity. :) - - - - - - - - - RB, It's apparent from your disengagement that you do not wish to argue the point presented in 1351. As is typical of rhetorical defense, your position has been defeated by the logic you ignored in contriving it. Upright BiPed

MrMosis:

One first [probably elementary] question I often wonder about is: where is the information stored that prescribes the materials and methods for “manufacturing” the apparatus used for the receiving of a transmitted/stored message.

This is a great question! When speaking of cells, some people seem to believe that all requisite information is stored in the DNA, but I am not one of them. And it's because of questions like the one you ask. The how to questions. The meta questions. I think we have yet a great deal to discover yet about the informational aspects of living cells. Say the DNA contains the coding for a protein. Does it also contain the information about what that protein binds, what's it's purpose is? Does it contain the information about why that particular protein? I think not, but how can we test this? I hope you won't be offended, but I googled ribosome and this is what I got, lol: http://www.biology4kids.com/files/cell_ribos.html But it doesn't say how ribosomes are made, hehe. Nice to have you join in. Center for Molecular Biology of RNA Ribosome - Proteopedia, life in 3D And of course, NCBI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21054/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21475/ Mung

I love this thread, but have not even almost been able to keep up with it since it first started. So I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, or is discussed repeatedly and at length in the preceding 1630+ comments. (Admittedly, I am not even (yet) a novice, when it comes to any Biology, particularly a molecular sort. But I do hope to find the time to get into it all before long.) One first [probably elementary] question I often wonder about is: where is the information stored that prescribes the materials and methods for "manufacturing" the apparatus used for the receiving of a transmitted/stored message. I am trying to develop (in my own mind anyway) a conceptual framework for how, if warranted, one could distinguish between: 1) an information storage/transmission system that includes in its information content "instructions" that in a more mechanistic fashion create a machine (and possibly also "establish" a code) that will be subsequently used for the reading/receipt of the rest of the information, whose encoding is of arbitrary nature with respect to the medium and 2) more every-day information storage/transmission systems where the entirety of the way in which the information content is encoded is arbitrary with respect to the medium. There are several [hopefully accurate] presuppositions in #1 above (a novice biologist's presuppositions) that I am hoping will facilitate rather than complicate what I am trying to get at. Another way of asking might be something like, "Where do ribosomes come from? Does their construction also necessitate the prior functioning of the information processing system, and all of its requisite parts, including the arbitrary nature of where the information content meets the physical world?" Or, Where, when and how is the line drawn between the mechanistic processes related to the storage/transmission/reading/receipt of the information and the grounding of the arbitrarily arranged (non-mechanistically associated/arranged) nucleotide bits, a/k/a "information". Hope that makes some sense. MrMosis

Unparsed would seem a more accurate interpretation!

LOL! Parsed to death would be more like it! arbirarty: D1, D2, D3 D4, D5, D6 ....... ad infinitum Mung

The OP and the argument in it remain un-refuted. Alan Fox:

Unparsed would seem a more accurate interpretation!

Unparsed only to the illiterate. As for where do we go from here, ie from the design inference, well where do the archaeologists go once they have determined they are holding artifacts? Where do forensic scientists go once they have determined a crime has taken place? Where would SETI researchers go once they find a signal that matches the ET criteria? In order to understand a design you first have to determine design is present. And then once design is determined it changes the investigation. Joe

petrushka:

Information is an abstraction, the properties of stuff. Feel free to present a counterexample. Give me an instance of information that is free of matter or energy.

lol. You want me to transfer information in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter? So you want me to prove Upright BiPed wrong. Sorry, I don't feel like letting you all off the hook like that. :) Basically, you're agreeing with him. Do you know that? Mung

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1495&cpage=1#comment-18935 Mung

Man, there are some serious failures in basic comprehension and reasoning over at TSZ. Upright BiPed:

2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

petrushka:

So yes, information is always instantiated in matter or energy. I thought the ID side had reached agreement on this.

First, Upright BiPed did not say that information is always instantiated in matter or energy. What he said was, if you want to transfer information in a material universe, information requires a material representation. And given that the representation is not the thing being represented, it does not follow that because the transfer of information in a material universe requires a material representation that information is just the result of matter and energy alone. So my initial questions still stand: Information – is that one of those things that cannot be empirically detected? Is information just the result of matter and energy alone?

Mung

Theses on Biosemiotics: Prolegomena to a Theoretical Biology

II. Biology is incomplete as a science in the absence of explicit semiotic grounding The neodarwinian biology as practiced all over the world has prescinded (i.e., abstracted from necessary contextual support) an asemiotic conception of life as mere molecular chemistry, and yet at the same time is dependent on unanalyzed semiotic assumptions.

- Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs Mung

Seriously, Alan, why does he need to go anywhere?

He doesn't of course!

The OP and the argument in it remain un-refuted.

Unparsed would seem a more accurate interpretation!

He can stand here and wait, and wait, and wait, just as he has been, until another of you jokers shows up and makes extravagant claims that they have no hope of backing up (e.g., Elizabeth Liddle).

He can indeed! What would the point be?

Just the entertainment value alone is worth the wait.

Right. I thought there was some real point involved. Silly me!

But did you even bother to read the above linked?

No.

The scientific community is beginning to catch on. No need for Upright BiPed to go anywhere.

I await the press release!

Meanwhile, your side falls further and further behind. You’re left denying the facts in the vain hope no one will notice that you’re now a member of a cult.

I'm a member of one or two things but they wouldn't have me in the local cult. I am just a curious observer of the fortunes of "Intelligent Design" advocates. ID success is not linked to the progress of alternative philosophies. Alan Fox

Seriously, Alan, why does he need to go anywhere? The OP and the argument in it remain un-refuted. He can stand here and wait, and wait, and wait, just as he has been, until another of you jokers shows up and makes extravagant claims that they have no hope of backing up (e.g., Elizabeth Liddle). Just the entertainment value alone is worth the wait. But did you even bother to read the above linked? The scientific community is beginning to catch on. No need for Upright BiPed to go anywhere. Meanwhile, your side falls further and further behind. You're left denying the facts in the vain hope no one will notice that you're now a member of a cult. Mung

Seriously, Upright Biped, I'm curious. Where do you go from here? Alan Fox

Davies and Walker explain that life cannot be all analog, nor can it be all digital. Analog life would not survive geological time, they argue, because it lacks a method to encode adaptations to change. Digital-only life fails from the starting gate, though, because it cannot deal with biological function. That's because the information in life as we know it is stored in the system as a whole, not just in the genetic macromolecules: function involves all the networks of analog molecules, their feedback loops, and their ability to modify DNA itself. The hybrid "RNA World" scenario with its half-genetic, half-metabolic ribozymes is flawed because "there would be no way to physically decouple information and control from the hardware it operates on, resulting in unreliable information protocols due to noisy information channels." Indeed, "that mono-molecular systems are divided from known life by a logical and organizational chasm that cannot be crossed by mere complexification of passive hardware." For these reasons, Davies and Walker believe life had to be "'bimolecular' from the start," with analog and digital components separated, working together as a system.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/assessing_the_a067541.html Mung

Reciprocating Bill, I have to agree with Eric. I'd really love to see Upright BiPed caught in a compromising position, I really can't stand the guy (or girl). But you cutting and pasting statements and then saying "see, therefore something else must be true," I find that hard to follow. Are you making claims about his position, or about claims he's made about your position, or what? Mung

Mung, thanks. My bad, I was scrolling too quickly. I'm sure glad we don't have deception on either side now! :) ----- RB, I realize I'm tangential to your discussion with UB, but #1342 seeks to cut to the chase and understand what your underlying substantive argument is. Would you be so kind as to briefly identify for the rest of us which category you are in? Eric Anderson

Bill, More rhetoric? This text is from the same post: Bill deliberately reposts the same quote over and over, but he knows the falsity of the statement doesn’t turn on whether my argument does or doesn’t demonstrate a particular class of cause. The falsity of the claim is tied to Bill asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do. A thermometer cannot tell you how many degrees are in an angle. Claiming that “it can’t” is factually true. Claiming that “it can’t” as an argumentative strategy against the thermometer, is a patently false claim." Argue it out. Upright BiPed

UB:

I am so deeply thankful that my intellectual life is not dependent on rhetorical device and deception.

You omitted self-deception. Above you state that my argument was founded on a falsehood - in fact, a "patent falsehood." I forthwith reproduced your earlier explicit, unequivocal endorsement of those same statements. And your rationalization?

Your claim is not patently false because my argument does not require or exclude a particular class of causation. [Translation: It is not false because it is false.] It is patently false because of what you are doing with it

We have a new dictionary entry from Grima Wormtongue: "False statement: A statement that is true, but I don't like what you do with it." Welcome to intellectual Chapter 7, UB. Reciprocating Bill

I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting to see a refutation. Mung

So ... What next, Upright Biped? Alan Fox

Eric, I think you were quoting Upright BiPed. Mung

RB:

I am so deeply thankful that my intellectual life is not dependent on rhetorical device and deception. That is all this exchange has been about.

Excellent. So would you mind answering my question in 1342? (No rhetorical devices or deceptions needed.) Eric Anderson

Eric at 1342, You are correct that this conversation has narrowed to pointless back and forth. The current exchange doesn’t even impact the issues in the OP. This is just a part of the rhetorical game Bill is playing, which I have felt obligated to respond to. However, if you are referring to RB’s set-up in 1341 regarding the statement of a “patently false claim”, I did not misspeak. Bill deliberately reposts the same quote over and over, but he knows the falsity of the statement doesn’t turn on whether my argument does or doesn’t demonstrate a particular class of cause. The falsity of the claim is tied to Bill asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do. A thermometer cannot tell you how many degrees are in an angle. Claiming that “it can’t” is factually true. Claiming that “it can’t” as an argumentative strategy against the thermometer, is a patently false claim. Bill at 1341, “…you also falsely claim that it [semiosis] ”neither requires a nor excludes a particular kind of causation”. And on the basis of this patently false claim…” Your claim is not patently false because my argument does not require or exclude a particular class of causation. It is patently false because of what you are doing with it. My argument was not designed to require or exclude a particular class of causation; it was designed to inventory the material requirements of that causation. You know this because I’ve repeatedly told you so. Upright BiPed

Q: Does semiotic theory per se [the fire tetrahedron] assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state [set a fire]? A: "No" Q: Conversely, does semiotic theory per se [the fire tetrahedron] assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state [set a fire]? A: "No" Q: If neither, how can the theory itself can be said to constrain the set of possible causal mechanisms? Would it not be silent on causation? A: (given 333 comments ago) The tetrahedron defines without exception what is required for a fire to occur, but does not identify who or what may have caused the fire. Yet, if a fuel and heat source (specific material conditions) are required, then we know that the cause of that fire will have had to provide those requirements if they are not locally accounted for otherwise. Refutation of this obvious fact: zip Acknowledgement of this fact: zip Rhetorical maneuvering: non-stop Upright BiPed

RB: Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? UB: "No" RB: Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? UB: "No" RB: If neither, how can the theory itself can be said to constrain the set of possible causal mechanisms? Would it not be silent on causation? UB: What else constrains the evaluation of a “set of possible causal mechanisms” if not what is necessary for them to accomplish? Are you suggesting that we should attempt to apprehend a causal mechanism without understanding what is necessary? Are you suggesting that all causal mechanisms are equal? If these are not what you are suggesting, then knowing ‘what is necessary’ helps to illuminate any proposition to follow. Do you disagree? RB: Of course a description of the system we wish to understand is a crucial element in the search for causes. The question is, does adding “the system is semiotic” as defined in semiotic theory to that description add anything of value to our current physiochemical understanding? UB: It tells us that the process has a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated within it which is not only necessary for it to operate, but is also the specific source of the function it produces. And as you say, this is a “crucial element” if we wish to understand the system as it actually exist. RB’s refutation? (zip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I am so deeply thankful that my intellectual life is not dependent on rhetorical device and deception. That is all this exchange has been about. It was never about the prize of scientific truth, supportable warrant, or validity. If I was debating an opponent who substantiated the notion that X was the result of Y, I would be literally embarrassed to argue on as I ignored that notion. I simply wouldn't do it, and I think there are many UD contributors that feel that same way. Bill does not suffer from such scruples, and his prize is otherwise. His hilarious claim that I quote-mined him is a perfect example. He repeats over and over that I have contradicted myself with regard to excluding living agents, while he deceptively ignores the distinction pointed out to him hundreds of post ago. And here yet again, he repeats over and over my one-word answers of "no" to his questions regarding causation, while he deceptively ignores the exchange that followed those answers. Literally, what does one do when, despite one's best attempts at encouraging a legitimate debate, it becomes obvious that the only prize on the table is anathema to that end. Upright BiPed

RB: There seems to be a lot of 'he said - she said' taking place on the thread lately which is sucking up quite a bit of energy. Let's assume, just for sake of discussion, that UB misspoke at some point in the thread and didn't use the right terminology. Let's further assume that you have caught UB misspeaking and have demonstrated this fact. Fine. What is your primary substantive issue with the semiotic idea being laid out? That: (i) the existence of a semiotic system doesn't allow a deduction of design, (ii) the existence of a semiotic system doesn't allow an inference of design, (iii) the inference to design is countered by affirmative evidence that a semiotic system can be built by purely materialistic processes, or (iv) we have no way of knowing anything about the design and can't say one way or the other? Amidst all the back-and-forth accusations of misquotes and misstatements, I'm just trying to understand which position you are taking . . . Eric Anderson

UB:

this comment does not address the issue at hand.

What it does do is much more interesting and consequential than what it doesn't. And all I need do is repost, without comment: UB now:

…you also falsely claim that it [semiosis] ”neither requires a nor excludes a particular kind of causation”. And on the basis of this patently false claim…

UB ~four weeks ago:

RB: "Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?" UB: "No." RB: "Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?" UB: "No."

More anon... Reciprocating Bill

RB,

How, for God’s sake, do you shave?

As before, in the previously noted example of your refusal to address the standing distinction which resolved your claim of a contradiction, this comment does not address the issue at hand. A simple question: If the fire tetrahedron does not indentify a specific cause of a fire, but tells you (without exception) the mechanics of the fire, and by extension tells you what is materially required from that cause, is it then silent on causation? From #1008: (329 comments gao)

As has already been explained via the example of the fire tetrahedron; the tetrahedron defines (without exception) what is required for a fire to occur, but does not identify who or what may have caused the fire. Yet, if a fuel and heat source (specific material conditions) are required, then we know that the cause of that fire will have had to provide those requirements if they are not locally accounted for otherwise. This is non-controversial.

From #1088 (249 comments ago)

The relevance of the semiotic argument has already been explained to you using the very similar example of the “fire tetrahedron”. I’ll give it to you again. The older “fire triangle” stated that fire required three material conditions (i.e. a heat source, an oxidizer, and a fuel) as the necessary ingredients of a fire. But as it turns out, the mere existence of those three ingredients by themselves were not sufficient to indicate the presence of fire. What was required was the addition of a unique identifying process. The fire tetrahedron closed that loop by adding the specific process of combustion to the three material conditions; which when present, was sufficient to indicate the presence of fire. information (i.e. a material representation, a material protocol, and a materially-arbitrary relationship between the representation and its effect). The mere presence of these three conditions cannot confirm the existence of recorded information transfer, yet with the addition of a unique identifying process, they can. That unique identifying process is the production of unambiguous function, as seen throughout the living kingdom. Together, these three material conditions in the presence of this unique identifying process can confirm the transfer of recorded information. While the concept of the “fire tetrahedron” can confirm the existence of a fire, it cannot identify who or what started the fire (i.e. its origin). Likewise, the four entailments listed in the semiotic argument can confirm the transfer of recorded information; but it cannot tell you the origin of the system. However, (contrary to your assertion) in neither of these cases is the knowledge of these systems suddenly “silent” on causation. As stated earlier in this thread regarding the tetrahedron and a confirmed instance of a fire; if a fire investigator knows that a fuel and heat source (i.e. specific material conditions) are required for fire, then that investigator will know that the cause of that fire will have had to provide those specific requirements if they are not locally accounted for otherwise. If they can be accounted for, then the investigator will have no reason to search further in order to identify them. So to say that the fire tetrahedron is “silent” on causation is simply not true. The knowledge of the tetrahedron is the backbone of the investigation. The semiotic argument plays an identical role in a confirmed instance of information transfer; it provides a model of the material conditions which must be met (in order to explain what must be explained). Specifically regarding DNA processing (even if we set aside the question of a source of the material components involved) we can observe the system in operation. We can account for the material conditions present in the representations and protocols, and we observe the unambiguous function as a result of the system. However, we have no mechanism to account for the arbitrary relationship which exists between the representations and their effects, nor for the coordination of the protocols in specifying those effects. So unless you can document something to the general effect that “under unguided condition X, and in the presence of A, B, and C, a relationship will form between A and C mediated by B”, then it is completely obtuse and ignorant to suggest that the semiotic argument has nothing interesting to say (“devoid of relevance”) regarding causation.

From #1125: (212 commets ago)

You are so determined to characterize the semiotic argument as meaningless that apparently you will say anything at all. It. But no matter how you’d like to spin it, it is hardly meaningless to have it demonstrated that a physiochemically-inert relationship is the proximate source of life on Earth. You’ve led off with the unsustainable idea that the semiotic argument is silent on causation, and when shown that it is not, you hadn’t the good sense to just leave it alone, but instead returned with your indefensible screed at 1119. Its as if I told you that since the fire tetrahedron cannot determine who or what set a fire, then rubbing two cubes of ice together is suddenly back in play. Give it a rest Bill. When the horse is dead, get off.

From #1255: (82 comments ago)

The argument presented above needn’t do any more than it does; it employs universal observation and logical necessity to establish what is materially necessary for the transfer of recorded information. But you want to impose on it questions that it does not answer. You do this for the express purpose that you might grant yourself the luxury of ignoring it. It is a deliberate contrivance on your part, supporting a deliberate act of denial. The fire tetrahedron cannot tell you if a fire was set by any particular source, it can only tell you what is materially necessary for a fire to be confirmed. But no matter what the source of the fire, the fire tetrahedron will always remain true. It does not become useless to the investigator, notwithstanding your lack of discipline. Clearly, it is not what the argument ‘does not say’ that you wish to ignore, it’s what it does say.

Upright BiPed

How, for God’s sake, do you shave?

That's a non sequitur. But I'm going to guess that understanding the principles of right reason allows one to shave while ignorance of the principles of right reason also allows one to shave. So it doesn't appear to be about shaving. Mung

How, for God’s sake, do you shave?

Which area? Mung

UB now:

…you also falsely claim that it [semiosis] ”neither requires a nor excludes a particular kind of causation”. And on the basis of this patently false claim…

UB then: RB:

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

RB:

Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

How, for God's sake, do you shave? Reciprocating Bill

Meanwhile:

A first cell is a minimal evolutionary agent; a naked replicator, or chained set of replicators, is not.

The Major Transitions in Evolution Revisited p 102 Mung

Reciprocating Bill at 1334, POINT ONE (a modest inconvenience)

For the record: Does RB claim that living agency must be excluded as a cause?

As a cause of what, Bill? The cause of what effect, exactly? As a potential cause of the semiosis found in living cells? Is that the effect you are alluding to? The position you’ve argued for is that semiosis is a false observation which adds nothing ”of value to our current physiochemical understanding” because you also falsely claim that it ”neither requires a nor excludes a particular kind of causation”. And on the basis of this patently false claim, you see no reason for “adding semiosis to the description we already have” and therefore it can be summarily excluded from the observations. Is that the effect you are speaking of? If so, then you are attempting to clarify your position on a cause for the effect that you do not even believe exists. This conundrum has been forced upon you by your inability to refute the observations of the effect itself (which is the topic of this conversation). In any case, you are certainly welcome to carry on with both positions. Do you want to exclude agent involvement in origins? You say "Of course not", you just want to exclude any evidence for it. But you can't make that case. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - POINT TWO (an intractable problem) In 1334 you provide summaries of the post you’ve made:

Post #1286 (290 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it) I do not exclude living agency. Post # 1307 (311 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it). Your statements are contradictory. It is YOUR claim that excludes living agency. Post #1310 (314 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it). Your statements are contradictory. It is YOUR claim that excludes living agency. Post #1310 (314 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it). I do not exclude living agency. Post #1317 (321 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it). It is YOUR contradictory claim that excludes living agency. Post #1319 (323 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it). I do not exclude living agency. Post 1321 (325 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it). I do not exclude living agency. Your statements are contradictory. It is YOUR claim that excludes living agency.

It does not go un-noticed that there was a clarification asked for, and given. In 963 you asked two questions, and in 964 you received two answers. One answer was about agency causes and the other was about material causes. You contrasted the answer given about material causes with the answer given about agency causes. You then immediately (996) asked about a supposed contradiction between the two. You were given an answer to that supposed contradiction in the form of a valid distinction between the two. You could not refute this distinction, yet this distinction fully resolves the supposed contradiction you created by conflating the two causes (without this distinction in place). One can imagine that this is the point of asking for a clarification in the first place. If that is true, then one cannot act as though the clarification was not given. It was, and it stands. Now (having completely lost at all attempts to refute/impugn/falsify the argument at the top if this page) you wish to forget about any of that, and simply assert (repeatedly, 300 comments later) that you have identified a contradiction. You haven’t. The distinction still exists. You did not empty it. You cannot empty it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - POINT THREE (freely recorded here on UD without the slightest excuse of moderation) From the OP, If you disagree with UB’s conclusion, please demonstrate how his argument is either invalid (as a matter of logic the conclusion does not follow from the premises) or unsound (one or more of the premises are false). Good luck (you’re going to need it). You have been entirely unable to meet this challenge. Upright BiPed

For the record: Does RB claim that living agency must be excluded as a cause? Or does he identify a contradiction among UB's claims that has that result? Let us see. 996:

Also, within your framework, do not living agents (displaying massive organization) require recorded information to function? Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function? I see a short circuit between your answer to my first question and your answer to my second.

Your statements are contradictory. 1286:

My actual belief is that life has arisen at many times/places in the universe, and that the suite of adaptations we describe as “agency” has arisen somewhat less often (a frequency that dramatically turns on one’s definition of “agency”). It is certainly within the realm of possibility that life on earth was “seeded.”

I do not exclude living agency. 1307:

In one breath you stated that by “universal observation” semiotic states arise only from living agents. In the next you excluded “any process” (my emphasis) that requires recorded information in order to function. Last I looked, it was your claim that all living agents require recorded information in order to function. That obvious contradiction was the basis of my objection, twice clearly stated.

Your statements are contradictory. It is YOUR claim that excludes living agency. 1310:

Upon noting that you excluded “any process that requires recorded information” (which I took to mean, “any process that requires recorded information”), I meant that YOU have thereby excluded living agents as the cause of recorded information on earth, because living agency requires recorded information. Claiming both is a flat contradiction.

Your statements are contradictory. It is YOUR claim that excludes living agency. 1310:

As stated above, it happens to be my belief (no more than an assumption, I freely admit) that life has likely arisen in many places and times in this universe, agency somewhat less often (depending upon one’s definition of agency).

I do not exclude living agency. 1317:

What I am telling you is that your exclusion of “ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function” excludes living agents as the origin of recorded information, because agents require recorded information to function.

It is YOUR contradictory claim that excludes living agency.

I don’t really care about the logical fate of your ETs.

I do not exclude living agency. 1319:

I otherwise don’t care about the logical fate of your ETs.

I do not exclude living agency. 1321:

[agency as an explanation is] perfectly compatible with my own assumptions – I’ve never said otherwise. What it contradicts is YOUR exclusion of “ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function.” The contradiction is internal to your own claims and has nothing to do with my homely beliefs on the matter.

I do not exclude living agency. Your statements are contradictory. It is YOUR claim that excludes living agency. Does UB grasp the above? 1322

If agency has “arisen in many places and times in this universe”, then your call to summarily exclude them as a possible source of the semiosis on earth is illogical

He does not. Reciprocating Bill

Quotemine! I should have thought of that! Grrr... Mung

UB quotes RB's clarion call for the exclusion of agency!

“Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function?”

Why not reproduce the entire passage:

Also, within your framework, do not living agents (displaying massive organization) require recorded information to function? Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function? I see a short circuit between your answer to my first question and your answer to my second.

Not a call to exclude agents. A call for better wiring. Quotemine much? Reciprocating Bill

I suspect you are correct Mung. There appears to be no bottom. Upright BiPed

lol I can't wait for the response to that one. I can hear it now ... But that wasn't a call for their exclusion, just a request for a reason they ought not be excluded. [Forget about the possibility life arose elsewhere and is responsible for life here, and the infinite regress that calls out for!] Mung

RB at 1324

Another strangely disconnected comment. I’ve issued no call to exclude them.

"Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function?" "Do not all living agents require recorded information to function? If so, why aren’t they excluded on that ground?" etc Upright BiPed

Above quotes are from Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs. The claims or insinuations by certain people that "semiotic theory" is something made up by Upright BiPed are due to dishonesty or ignorance (or both). But it's what we've come to expect. Mung

Our path in this search to understand life processes has led us, as biologists, to a semiotic view. Life processes are not only significant for the organisms they involve. Signification, meaning, interpretation and information are not just concepts used and constructed by humans for describing such processes. We conclude that life processes themselves, by their very nature, are meaning-making, informational processes, that is, sign processes (semioses), and thus can fruitfully be understaood within a semiotic perspective.

...a theory of semiosis, contemporarily called semiotics, would include the entire sphere of biology (to be precise - that part of biology which deals with living systems.) Semiosis is the sign process - the fundamental process that carries meaning and in which meaning is created.

This investigation into the semiotic nature of living systems has taken a long time to emerge, since it poses a challenge to many of the prevailing ontological assumptions of both the natural and the human sciences. ...semiotics came onto the scene with it's full meaning, sense, and power only once we started to investigate how life actually works, only with the impetus to understand the building blocks of life.

Thus, semiotics is not only a matter of description, it is also primarily a matter of mechanisms - of semiotic mechanisms. ...Accordingly, biosemiotics is biology as a sign systems study, or, in other words, a study of semiosis in living nature. "Biosemiotics is the name of an interdisciplinary scientific project that is based on the recognition that life is fundamentally grounded in semiotic processes" (Hoffmeyer).

Semiosis is, in fact, the instrument which assures the maintenance of the steady state of any living entity...

Mung

It’s a hard row to hoe.

But what's a poor farmer to do when he's killed the mule? Mung

Hi Bill. Should we expect to ever see even an attempt at a refutation of the OP from you? Maybe for Christmas? Please? Mung

UB:

If agency has “arisen in many places and times in this universe”, then your call to summarily exclude them as a possible source of the semiosis on earth is illogical… unless you have established it as somehow impossible, or simply assume it.

Another strangely disconnected comment. I've issued no call to exclude them. It is YOUR claim that observation justifies the exclusion of "ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function" that does so. The contradiction is internal to your argument, and doesn't arise in any way from my beliefs on the matter. There is no requirement that my assertions align with YOUR claims to remain logical. (In fact…) Reciprocating Bill

Oh, and Bill, it has not gone un-noticed that you have yet to demonstrate that any of the observations given in the OP are false, or that the conclusions do not logically follow from those observations. Its a rather glaring ommission from the good work you're doing here. Upright BiPed

As above, 1) that statement does not participate this particular of your contradictions. Indeed, I’ve never commented upon it.

The statement above provides the context of my comment. You want to take my answer about material processes and apply it to an agent, and you immediately seized upon this by asking me very specifically about a supposed contradiction. In that clarification you were given a perfectly valid distinction between the two which logically demonstrates why you cannot conflate them. For you to establish a contradiction from this, you'll need to empty that valid distinction, which you cannot do.

It’s perfectly compatible with my own assumptions

If agency has "arisen in many places and times in this universe", then your call to summarily exclude them as a possible source of the semiosis on earth is illogical... unless you have established it as somehow impossible, or simply assume it. Upright BiPed

UB:

May I please act like “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial conditions” sounded like you were talking about agency to me...

As above, 1) that statement does not participate this particular of your contradictions. Indeed, I've never commented upon it. Rather, it is your exclusion of "ANY process that requires recorded information." 2) agency enters by means of the statement, “semiotic states rise only (or are in operation only) from massive organization (i.e. living agents)." The contradiction arises when you try to simultaneously attribute the origination of the TRI to ETs while excluding ANY process that requires recorded information. Within your framework, ETs require recorded information.

I bet no one notices that since I believe that other agents arose at different times in this 14byo universe, one of them could explain the semiosis we find on earth, so my claim that we should exclude them as an ‘impossibility’ is logically incoherent with my own words, and I also bet they’ll forget this incoherence was pointed out to time 30 days ago.

It's perfectly compatible with my own assumptions - I've never said otherwise. What it contradicts is YOUR exclusion of "ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function.” The contradiction is internal to your own claims and has nothing to do with my homely beliefs on the matter. I would have thought none of this difficult to understand. Reciprocating Bill

RB,

Yes, the backdown is simple

You mean: May I please act like “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial conditions” sounded like you were talking about agency to me, and further, can I pretend that I didn't immediately asked you specifically about that and when you said "no" and gave me a perfectly coherent reason, can I just pretend that you said "yes" instead?

your recent ascription to me of imaginary metaphysical preconceptions was 1) weirdly disconnected from the reality of the exchange and 2) with respect to the actual content of my “metaphysics,” out to lunch.

You mean: I bet no one notices that since I believe that other agents arose at different times in this 14byo universe, one of them could explain the semiosis we find on earth, so my claim that we should exclude them as an 'impossibility' is logically incoherent with my own words, and I also bet they'll forget this incoherence was pointed out to me 30 days ago. Upright BiPed

Yet another slab of empty metacommentary.

I suspect you’ll do anything, even offer me the opportunity to back down.

Yes, the backdown is simple: If you didn’t really mean ANY process, just say so, rather than generating more twisty little passages, all alike. That makes the contradiction evaporate. I otherwise don't care about the logical fate of your ETs - which is the reason I didn't pursue the topic further at the time. However, I have underscored the basis of my original question (namely, the above contradiction) in order to make clear to the person who is still following this discussion that your recent ascription to me of imaginary metaphysical preconceptions was 1) weirdly disconnected from the reality of the exchange and 2) with respect to the actual content of my "metaphysics," out to lunch. Reciprocating Bill

RB in 1317,

Do you see those words “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial conditions”? Does that sound like I was speaking about “agency”?

This statement does not enter into the contradiction I have identified. The proposition that does is your exclusion of “ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function” (my emphasis).

Yes Bill, the distinction you want to “identify” is between those causes that do and do not require semiosis in order to exist. But that wasn’t the question you asked. The distinction you now wish to ignore is the one you were asking about. It was the same one that I answered. Here’s the problem in a nutshell, Bill, you asked a question and got an answer. Then immediately over the course of three posts (996, 1003, 1011) you asked for a clarification to that answer, and you were given one which you could no longer argue with. So then you dropped it. Now you’ve circled back as if none of that had happened, and you want to claim a contradiction based specifically on the clarification you couldn’t argue with. I can only presume you’ve become frustrated and simply assumed that no one would notice this. You very specifically asked me for my justification in not excluding a possible agent origin of semiosis on earth because such an agent would require semiosis itself (just as Darwinian evolution would). By using the term “specifically asked” I mean to say that you asked me directly about this specific individual issue after you had heard my original answer to your question. But I highlighted a valid distinction between these two propositions, and I told you that it does not follow that such a proposed agent mechanism should be excluded because it would not require the semiosis on Earth (unlike the Darwinian process which is entirely dependent upon it). This is a perfectly logical position to take, and it is one which you did not engage further. Having any integrity whatsoever, you cannot ask for a specific clarification, then immediately get one, then ignore it, and then repeat (over and over) the words you asked to be clarified, all in the pretense that you never asked the question or heard the answer. And to make matters even worse, it remains a fact that the clarification given to you (i.e. the valid distinction between the two propositions) is entirely supported by reason (IOW, the “contradiction” is consequently resolved). It’s a hard row to hoe. Now you’ve gone and made your position even worse by not having the sense to just leave it alone. With your newly explained belief that life has likely risen several times in several places within the universe, you’ve not only demonstrated my point about the incoherence in your position, but in the process you’ve completely blown up your original “contradiction” claim by demonstrating the validity of the very clarification you’re trying to ignore. What a sad shape to find yourself in. I fully understand that you’d now like to portray a stiff upper lip and position my response as “special pleading”, but there is no amount of that tactic which can change the fact that your own beliefs demonstrate the valid distinction pointed out to you. When someone wants to position a logically valid distinction as special pleading, you can rest assured they’re obfuscating against that validity. One might wonder when you will have had enough of losing this argument. You will remember back in June when you were forced to concede your first round of objections. I thanked you for the conversation and was willing to leave it at that. Since then you’ve done nothing but dig a hole and stand in it. I suspect you’ll do anything, even offer me the opportunity to back down. Upright BiPed

UB:

Do you see those words “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial conditions”? Does that sound like I was speaking about “agency”?

This statement does not enter into the contradiction I have identified. The proposition that does is your exclusion of "ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function" (my emphasis). "Agency" enters by means of the statement, "semiotic states rise only (or are in operation only) from massive organization (i.e. living agents)," the second term of the contradiction. The contradiction arises when you try to simultaneously attribute the origination of the TRI to ETs while excluding ANY process that requires recorded information. Within your framework, ETs require recorded information.

Now let’s return to the current frame of reference, where you are telling me I must ignore the universal observation that all forms of semiosis stem from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. an agent) because an agent would require semiosis itself.

What I am telling you is that your exclusion of "ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function" excludes living agents as the origin of recorded information, because agents require recorded information to function. Backflips of special pleading follow: "I was addressing any speculated material process being the source of the semiosis in the genome on a pre-biotic earth." But "ANY process that requires the TRI in order to function" would include processes beyond those in a prebiotic earth - such as your imagined ETs. The backdown is simple: If you didn't really mean ANY process, just say so. That makes the contradiction evaporate. I don't really care about the logical fate of your ETs. What I do care to point out is that my objection to your "universal observations" arose not from metaphysical presuppositions you mistakenly ascribe to me, but rather from the fact that, prior to special pleadings and qualifications, the conclusions drawn from your "universal observations" contradict one another.

the only propositions I must logically eliminate are …b) the process of Darwinian evolution (because it’s a material process that requires semiosis in order to function, and therefore cannot be the source of that semiosis).

However, per 1286 above we have already established that it is your position that simpler Darwinian systems "may or may not be possible." From which it follows that you don’t know whether a simpler Darwinian system is possible. From which it further follows that so called “universal observation and logical necessity,” even as you construe them, leave open the question of whether simpler Darwinian systems are possible. Reciprocating Bill

Well, Upright BiPed, you need to just pick up your little IC system and go back to whatever star system you came from.

And finally let us say that they seeded Earth.

Indeed. They had a theory that permitted them to predict where to find planets capable of sustaining life based upon their understanding of the requirements for a living system. Meanwhile, we can't even define life. Stuck forever in the mud. Mung

RB,

As stated above, it happens to be my belief (no more than an assumption, I freely admit) that life has likely arisen in many places and times in this universe, agency somewhat less often (depending upon one’s definition of agency). Your ascription to me of an assumed conclusion not only bears zero resemblance to my actual objection, it ascribes to me an assumption opposite to that which I actually assume.

No resemblance? Really? Let’s play it out and see. Let us say that you are correct. Life began several times in the universe. And let us say that in one of those instances, Life beat us to higher mathematical intelligence by a few million years, after all, there are billions to go around. Let us then say that this intelligence developed incredible technologies (the kind we may have in a million or so years), as well as interstellar travel, and so on. And let us say they went off to seed prized planets with great potential for life. And finally let us say that they seeded Earth. They, indeed, are the source of the semiosis we have now found in the genomes of every living thing on this planet. Now let’s return to the current frame of reference, where you are telling me I must ignore the universal observation that all forms of semiosis stem from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. an agent) because an agent would require semiosis itself. And in return I tell you that I needn’t do any such thing because the only propositions I must logically eliminate are a) any semiotic agent on this planet (because we obviously didn’t create ourselves) and b) the process of Darwinian evolution (because it's a material process that requires semiosis in order to function, and therefore cannot be the source of that semiosis). I then end up telling you that your edict that we exclude these universal observations must be based on an assumed conclusion. The only logical detangling of your position suggests that you must have somehow eliminated agency from even being a possibility prior to its appearance on Earth. And in return you say “Oh no, you can't ascribe that to me, after all, I believe that life and agency have arisen many times in many places”.

Where it gets very strange is that you continue to ascribe to me that assumption after I have directly informed you that I believe the opposite.

Yeah, and I am informing you that the many facets of your ad hoc position are logically incoherent with one another. Upright BiPed

"When we describe biological processes we typically use informational narratives -- cells send out signals, developmental programs are run, coded instructions are read, genomic data are transmitted between generations and so forth," Walker said. "So identifying life's origin in the way information is processed and managed can open up new avenues for research."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/accounting_for067461.html Mung

RB,

I meant that YOU have thereby excluded living agents as the cause of recorded information on earth, because living agency requires recorded information … Hence the need for the post hoc backflip..

Again, there is no post-hoc back-flip. You asked questions. I answered them. You asked for clarifications. You received them. You then dropped the line of enquiry and moved on to other questions. Now you’ve run out of gas, and so you’ve returned with the wholly deceptive suggestion that I “excluded living agents as the cause of recorded information on earth because living agents require recorded information”.

RB at 996: Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function? UB at 1001: If it is a matter of universal observation that all examples of semiosis on this planet originate/operate from massive pre-existing organization, on what grounds am I obligated to exclude that observation when considering the origin of semiosis on this planet? RB at 1003: On the grounds that you just stated that among kinds of causes that observation tells us cannot create/originate/cause the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state are those that require recorded information to function. Do not all living agents require recorded information to function? If so, why aren’t they excluded on that ground? UB at 1009: The question at hand is the source of semiosis on this individual planet roughly 3 billion years ago, not the ultimate source of organization in any conceivable context. RB at 1011: ? UB at 1016: I don’t mean to impart any inconsistency, and I believe the context of the conversation demonstrates that I haven’t. You had asked me what class of mechanism could and could not create a semiotic state. I had already answered the first part of your question by drawing on the observation that all semiosis on earth stems from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. an agent). And here is my answer to the second part of your question:

“Again, I refer to observation; inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial condition provides no examples of producing semiotic states. I would also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function, such as Darwinian evolution as it is documented to function in living things.

It should be abundantly clear from this that I was addressing any speculated material process being the source of the semiosis in the genome on a pre-biotic earth. It should also be obvious that this would include the Darwinian process which requires that semiosis in order to exist. You then went on question why an agency mechanism is not also disqualified on the grounds that it would require semiosis as well. However, it does not follow that a proposed agency mechanism requires the semiosis in the genome of a pre-biotic earth, which is the very thing needing an explanation. As I said in my previous response; “The question at hand is the source of semiosis on this individual planet roughly 3 billion years ago, not the ultimate source of organization in any conceivable context.” In short, in the first instance I was addressing a material process which cannot logically both explain the semiosis on earth while at the same time require it for existence. And in the second instance I was addressing an agent mechanism which can explain that semiosis because it does not depend upon it. Again, this should be obvious from the context. RB at 1044: When you return, UB, why not cut to the chase and tell us where this all goes?

Upright BiPed

RB at 1310,

Yes, I saw the rhetorical backflip. When you excluded “any process that requires recorded information in order to function” you didn’t mean “any process that requires recorded information in order to function” (how silly of me).

There is no back flip here Bill. “Backflip” is a cheap characterization, given so that you may remove my words from the direct (undeniable) context in which they were given, and instead place them wherever they might do you some rhetorical duty. Try reading again: You asked what ‘could not’ create a semiotic state:

Again, I refer to observation; inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial condition provides no examples of producing semiotic states. I would also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function, such as Darwinian evolution as it is documented to function in living things.

Do you see those words “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial conditions”? Does that sound like I was speaking about “agency”? Does it? What characteristics do you see in “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial conditions” that indicates “agency” to you? Is it the “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law” part of the sentence, or is it more the “from any identifiable initial condition” part? Is it a little of both? “acted upon by physical law from initial conditions” = agency ? Do you really believe I was speaking to you about agency involvement when I said “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any initial conditions”? Of course not. No one would. - - - - - - - - - - - - - You have now resorted to defending your worldview by the use of common fraud. Congratulations Bill. Upright BiPed

According to one source: "A descriptive theory tells us the ways things are, but not what we ought to do." See also: Options of Descriptive Theory Mung

UB:

And here is my answer to the second part of your question…

Yes, I saw the rhetorical backflip. When you excluded "any process that requires recorded information in order to function" you didn't mean "any process that requires recorded information in order to function" (how silly of me). You meant to exclude "semiosis in the genome of a prebiotic earth, the very thing needing an explanation." But post hoc contortions won't help you here, as the issue is not what you said (and meant, however they differ), but what I said and meant, and whether your inference regarding my metaphysical assumptions was justified by what I actually said. What I intended doesn't need post hoc revision. Upon noting that you excluded "any process that requires recorded information" (which I took to mean, "any process that requires recorded information"), I meant that YOU have thereby excluded living agents as the cause of recorded information on earth, because living agency requires recorded information. Claiming both is a flat contradiction. Hence the need for the post hoc backflip. What you can infer about me from that is that I notice when you flatly contradict yourself.

If agency was impossible prior to life on earth, then it could not explain the semiosis on earth...In other words, you simply assume your conclusion.

As stated above, it happens to be my belief (no more than an assumption, I freely admit) that life has likely arisen in many places and times in this universe, agency somewhat less often (depending upon one's definition of agency). Your ascription to me of an assumed conclusion not only bears zero resemblance to my actual objection, it ascribes to me an assumption opposite to that which I actually assume. Where it gets very strange is that you continue to ascribe to me that assumption after I have directly informed you that I believe the opposite. Reciprocating Bill

And here I thought a sovereign was a coin. Mung

RB at 1307, I understand your situation Bill. As it turns out, you have absolutely no way to refute the observations in the OP. This has been made obvious. But even worse, you cannot even address them without confirming them. And given that it is obviously beyond your ability to acknowledge this fact, you are left to fabricate rhetoric and cling to unsustainable positions. This is now the second or third time you played this latest one. Let’s get this straight. Throughout all of our human observations regarding the material processes within this universe, in its entirety, there is one set of material conditions that is singularly unlike any other. It is the one where we, living things of every kind on earth, transfer information by the use of a material medium. We have exactly one model for this process, and none other. And yet that one model covers every single instance where information is transferred. Yet when we then find these exact same material conditions demonstrated in the expression of genetic information, your position is that we must exclude our universal observations, because if we fail to do so, we would create an infinite regress - which is valid only if materialism is true. Sorry Skip, I don’t have to assume your conclusions just because you do. Neither does anyone else.

RB: Also, within your framework, do not living agents (displaying massive organization) require recorded information to function? Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function? UB: If it is a matter of universal observation that all examples of semiosis on this planet originate/operate from massive pre-existing organization, on what grounds am I obligated to exclude that observation when considering the origin of semiosis on this planet? Will excluding the observation reverse the material requirements? RB: On the grounds that you just stated that among kinds of causes that observation tells us cannot create/originate/cause the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state are those that require recorded information to function. Do not all living agents require recorded information to function? If so, why aren’t they excluded on that ground? UB: You had asked me what class of mechanism could and could not create a semiotic state. I had already answered the first part of your question by drawing on the observation that all semiosis on earth stems from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. an agent). And here is my answer to the second part of your question:

“Again, I refer to observation; inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial condition provides no examples of producing semiotic states. I would also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function, such as Darwinian evolution as it is documented to function in living things.

It should be abundantly clear from this that I was addressing any speculated material process being the source of the semiosis in the genome on a pre-biotic earth. It should also be obvious that this would include the Darwinian process which requires that semiosis in order to exist. You then went on question why an agency mechanism is not also disqualified on the grounds that it would require semiosis as well. However, it does not follow that a proposed agency mechanism requires the semiosis in the genome of a pre-biotic earth, which is the very thing needing an explanation.

Read that last sentence again Bill. If agency was impossible prior to life on earth, then it could not explain the semiosis on earth. On the other hand, if agency was not impossible prior to life on earth, then ... In other words, you simply assume your conclusion. You can run all the rhetoric you wish Bill, I’m not obligated to assume materialism is true just in order to save you the hassle of dealing with the universal observations of mankind. - - - - - - - - - -

UB:: you haven’t demonstrated the sovereignty to even acknowledge the validity of the observations regarding the system as we find it today, so you’ve wagered nothing in having an genuine exchange about its origin. RB: “Sovereignty?” You are one strange writer.

(Merriam Webster) sovereign : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere; an acknowledged leader I suppose you have a point. I shouldn’t have expected an entrenched ideologue to understand he has the authority over his own actions. There is little doubt he would find such a suggestion "strange" in comparison. Upright BiPed

UB:

Valid observations of material conditions were presented. You responded by advocating that (since agency involvement would require those same material conditions) these valid observations should be summarily excluded from consideration.

Another weird, revisionist account of a prior conversation. Recall that when asked, "Please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state," you stated:

Our universal experience is that semiotic states rise only (or are in operation only) from massive organization (i.e. living agents).

Also recall that when asked, "please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state," you stated:

I would also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function

My emphasis. (You later clarified that neither claim flows from semiotic theory per se.) In response to which I asked: …within your framework, do not living agents (displaying massive organization) require recorded information to function? Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function? That was the basis of my objection. The exchange continued: UB:

on what grounds am I obligated to exclude that observation when considering the origin of semiosis on this planet?

RB:

On the grounds that you just stated that among kinds of causes that observation tells us cannot create/originate/cause the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state are those that require recorded information to function. Do not all living agents require recorded information to function? If so, why aren’t they excluded on that ground?

In one breath you stated that by "universal observation" semiotic states arise only from living agents. In the next you excluded "any process" (my emphasis) that requires recorded information in order to function. Last I looked, it was your claim that all living agents require recorded information in order to function. That obvious contradiction was the basis of my objection, twice clearly stated. Any conclusions vis my "metaphysical position" you drew directly from your own fevered brain pan. (Although not important here, your solution was a backflip of special pleading: "The question at hand is the source of semiosis on this individual planet roughly 3 billion years ago, not the ultimate source of organization in any conceivable context.”) UB:

The infinite regress is not a problem for me because I have no metaphysical priors which deny the valid logical ‘among a contingent universe something must be necessary’.

I have no idea what that means.

I could only “contradict” my statement if I had subsequently claimed that she really could provide a conceptual example. But I did not say that, and I have no reason to.

Your statement was, "You withdrew because the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process, and you know it." It is this clause that is flatly contradicted by your recent statements: "the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process."

Secondly, you haven’t demonstrated the sovereignty to even acknowledge the validity of the observations…

"Sovereignty?" You are one strange writer. Reciprocating Bill

Perhaps comparative details are forthcoming.

Comparative detailed hand-waving. Mung

Eric @ 1293 I too have been interested in the details of this hypothetical falisfication. How can one say that the material conditions described in the OP are not necessary if one cannot even describe how a counter-example would accomplish what has to be accmplished? Of course, the first time this subject was approached at TSZ, the response was hardly convincing:

I am almost certain (from long experience) that Upright would like to avoid my questions by focusing instead on irrelevant details. Fortunately, that’s not necessary. We can talk about self-replicating molecules in the abstract, just as Upright talks about semiotic systems in the abstract.

Not only did I not speak in the abstract, I demonstrated my argument using the specific objects within the extisting genetic system. Perhaps comparative details are forthcoming. Upright BiPed

RB at 1286,

I do recall you incorrectly ascribing that view to me.

Valid observations of material conditions were presented. You responded by advocating that (since agency involvement would require those same material conditions) these valid observations should be summarily excluded from consideration. This puts you in the logical position of saying that agency involvement was not possible prior to its rise on Earth. Only by wholly excluding it as a possibility can you have reason to dismiss it from the rise of life on earth.

It is certainly within the realm of possibility that life on earth was “seeded.” However, the issue of regress is inherent in that hypothesis, as it kicks the OOL can down the road. Given that you find the “seeding” hypothesis compelling and I don’t, that would be your problem, not mine.

Don’t be silly. The infinite regress is not a problem for me because I have no metaphysical priors which deny the valid logical 'among a contingent universe something must be necessary’. The regress is nothing more than a rhetorical tool for materialist culture warriors, born from their own assumptions. They project it upon their opposition, while they quietly resolve it for themselves with a hypothetical transcendent multi-verse. It’s a complete joke.

UB: That comment was perfectly suited to the person it was made to; as evidence by the fact that she could not provide one. RB: Nevertheless, it is flatly contradicted by your more recent statements.

I could only “contradict” my statement if I had subsequently claimed that she really could provide a conceptual example. But I did not say that, and I have no reason to. Perhaps you meant to say that my statement could be “falsified” by her conceptual example, but that didn’t happen.

Vis simpler instances of Darwinan replication, variation and differential reproductive success: the RNA-world hypothesis (again, as an example) turns on the conceptually feasible notion of precursor replicators that exhibit no genotype/phenotype distinction, and are therefore devoid several (all?) of the key “entailments.”

As I said in my previous post, absent any details, there is no point in arguing this with you. Firstly, it doesn’t change the observations in the OP. Secondly, you haven’t demonstrated the sovereignty to even acknowledge the validity of the observations regarding the system as we find it today, so you’ve wagered nothing in having an genuine exchange about its origin. And thirdly, the conversation goes nowhere. I say: “Here are the necessary material conditions of information transfer” You say: “They aren’t necessary” I say: “How so?” You say: “Simpler replicators with variation and differential reproductive success” I say: “That’s a lot of function, how does it work?” You say: “It’s hypothetical” I say” “It’s hypothetical?” You say: “Therefore you’re claims are false” - - - - - - - - - - Forgive me if I don’t ride that bus. :| Upright BiPed

kairosfocus, Yes, I get it but it is a given that Alan doesn't or just refuses to. Joe

The algorithmic origin of life google Mung

According to the researchers, all living things have one property that inanimate objects don't: Information flows in two directions.

Another hallmark of living beings is that they have different physical locations for storing and reading information. For instance, the alphabet of letters in DNA carries the instructions for life, but another part of the cell, called the ribosome, must translate those instructions into actions inside the cell, Davies told LiveScience.

Sounds suspiciously like a claim that life is semiotic.

By this definition, computers, which store data on a hard drive and read it off using a central processing unit, would have the hallmarks of life

Or that living things contain systems exhibiting the hallmarks of a computer. Mung

1300 comments and still no rebuttal. Mung

Using a chemical definition of life — for instance, requiring DNA — may limit the hunt for extraterrestrial life, and it also may wrongly include nonliving systems, for instance, a petri dish full of self-replicating DNA, she said.

lol Mung

Joe: AF is adequately answered by the fact -- commented on here in the Jerad thread -- that Dawkins felt it necessary to resort to the RNA world hyp and to suppress its challenges, in the book AF has put on the table. The result blows up the root of the tree of life. The logic is: no root, no basis for shoots. And of course, having falsely accused me of being "dishonest" for pointing out Dawkins' epistemological blunder in over-claiming warrant and his moral one in comparing invidiously those who question to holocaust deniers, while AF has popped up elsewhere in the past 36 hrs or so he has not been seen in that thread. I hope this changes by later today when I can check back. KF kairosfocus

Alan Fox:

As I keep saying, evolution does not attempt to address the arrival of life on Earth, only its subsequent diversity.

Do you really think that your willful ignorance means something? Really?? Logic dictates that if the ToE does NOT address the origin of life then it cannot address its diversity as the two are directly linked. Joe

And the 'Information' flowing in on this subject just continues http://news.yahoo.com/origin-life-needs-rethink-scientists-argue-000826792.html DavidD

So aren’t we back to the question on the table? What is the most likely origin of the semiotic system we see before us today — purposeful design or chance?

Reciprocating Bill, and most other critics, must deny that the system is in fact semiotic. I await Reciprocating Bill's review of the following: Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs Mung

The RNA World hypothesis is constructed from two observations. 1. RNA can serve as a physical medium for the transfer of recorded information. 2.) RNA can serve (assist?) as a catalyst in biochemical reactions. From these two observations it does not follow that RNA is, or even can be, a self-replicating molecule. Reciprocating Bill, and keiths, thrive on the hope of hypothetical entities for which they have no theoretical or observational evidence. Ain't hope grand? Mung

RB @1286: I'm trying to understand your viewpoint with respect to OOL not needing the entailments UB describes that we currently see in biology. Setting aside for a moment the very significant problems with the RNA-world hypothesis, are you suggesting that in an RNA-first scenario an RNA string itself was self-replicating? In other words, if I'm filling in the details of your hypothesis properly, the scenario is something like this: (i) an RNA string arises that has the ability to self-replicate (presumably this string arose purely by chance); (ii) the RNA string continues to self-replicate, with chance mutations over time, until it gains the ability to carry out some additional function, say, to catalyze some reaction (again, this ability would have arisen purely by chance); (iii) the RNA string continues to self-replicate, with more chance mutations, until it happens upon the right sequence to code for a particular protein (again, this sequence would have arisen purely by chance); (iv) at the same time, we have, what, some other independent stuff arising? For example, there has to be some kind of process (meaning, molecular machine and information driven sequence of events) to build the protein based coded for in the RNA sequence (again, this information and suite of machines would have arisen purely by chance); (v) eventually, the RNA string would build a simple organism, build DNA, create a code and put in place all the entailments UB has been discussing (presumably all this would have arisen purely by chance). Sorry. I obviously got pretty lazy with (iv) and (v). I started this comment with the intent of putting in some detail, but quickly despaired at about step (iii), as it is utterly unclear what the RNA-world would propose as logical steps to get to what we see today. In summary, I guess I'm not seeing how an RNA-string starting point gets us anywhere closer to explaining the entailments UB points out currently exist in biology -- other than relying on pure chance that is. So aren't we back to the question on the table? What is the most likely origin of the semiotic system we see before us today -- purposeful design or chance? Eric Anderson

Alan Fox @1284:

As I keep saying, evolution does not attempt to address the arrival of life on Earth, only its subsequent diversity.

I don't have a problem with treating evolution as applying only after the arrival of life on Earth, whatever its historical underpinnings. So, assuming that evolution is irrelevant to OOL, would it be fair to say that life was originally intentionally created? If not, what alternative do you favor? Eric Anderson

Reciprocating Bill: conceptually feasible conceptually possible conceptually plausible Do these three phrases all mean the same thing? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

Vis simpler instances of Darwinan replication, variation and differential reproductive success: the RNA-world hypothesis (again, as an example) turns on the conceptually feasible notion of precursor replicators that exhibit no genotype/phenotype distinction, and are therefore devoid several (all?) of the key “entailments.”

Conceptually Feasible = I can imagin it, therefore it must be possible. Are unicorns conceptually feasible? If not, why not? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

My actual belief is that life has arisen at many times/places in the universe...

And the evidence is...? Mung

RB:

Susan Mazur may be crazy, but she isn’t a researcher, in the sense of “scientific researcher.” She is a journalist.

A journalist interviewing and quoting researchers. What's your point, if you have one? Mung

UB:

It sure sounds like these crazy researchers recognize that it’s the existence of recorded information which facilitates the Darwinian mechanism.

Susan Mazur may be crazy, but she isn't a researcher, in the sense of "scientific researcher." She is a journalist. Reciprocating Bill

UB:

What we’ve learned is that your position turns on a personal metaphysic belief that agency was an impossibility prior to life on earth.

I do recall you incorrectly ascribing that view to me. My actual belief is that life has arisen at many times/places in the universe, and that the suite of adaptations we describe as "agency" has arisen somewhat less often (a frequency that dramatically turns on one's definition of "agency"). It is certainly within the realm of possibility that life on earth was "seeded." However, the issue of regress is inherent in that hypothesis, as it kicks the OOL can down the road. Given that you find the "seeding" hypothesis compelling and I don't, that would be your problem, not mine.

That comment was perfectly suited to the person it was made to; as evidence by the fact that she could not provide one. I have since invited you to provide one, which you failed to do.

Nevertheless, it is flatly contradicted by your more recent statements. Vis simpler instances of Darwinan replication, variation and differential reproductive success: the RNA-world hypothesis (again, as an example) turns on the conceptually feasible notion of precursor replicators that exhibit no genotype/phenotype distinction, and are therefore devoid several (all?) of the key "entailments." Similarly, conceptually possible precursor replicators in which codons are assembled of four or more base pairs, and can therefore utilize RNA - RNA interactions to synthesize proteins absent ribosomes (and hence absent your "protocol"), are being modeled. These examples establish that Darwinian replicators lacking various of your entailments are conceptually feasible. They further established that it is conceptually plausible that such Darwinian replication gave rise to "the entailments" by unguided means. They each also suggest further avenues of empirical research.

You want a specific example of how knowing 'an arbitrary relationship must be instantiated in the system'can assist those who are trying to replicate the system.

Not exactly. What I am asking of you is a demonstration of that "certain knowledge" guiding specific empirical research into the origins of that system. Will you please provide just one sketch of an example (there should be many) at the level of specificity present in your fantasy of putting me on trial for arson? An example of that certain knowledge making a difference to empirical research. RB summarizes UB:

Simpler Darwinian systems aren’t possible.

(The referent is "Simpler Darwinian systems.") UB takes issue with that summary:

As already stated, a simpler system may or may not be possible.

(The referent remains "Simpler Darwinian systems.") From which it follows that you don't know whether a simpler Darwinian system is possible. From which it further follows that so called "universal observation and logical necessity," even as you construe them, leave open the question of whether simpler Darwinian systems are possible.

They are attempting to resolve the genotype/phenotype distinction

Among their efforts are hypothesized precursor systems that lack the genotype/phenotype distinction, systems further hypothesized to have given rise to that distinction by Darwinian (unguided) means. Reciprocating Bill

And as I keep saying, Darwin's theory of evolution was offered as an alternative to the theory of special creation and therefore does attempt to address the arrival of life on Earth. Mung

UB quoting Harry Lonsdale:

I think that first life was capable of evolution and that evolution began on that day that first life came into being. Was there evolution before that first life? I don’t think that. Evolution is what brought that first life to you and me — a long, long tedious process that took billions of years.

Evolution came after the first life.

As I keep saying, evolution does not attempt to address the arrival of life on Earth, only its subsequent diversity. Alan Fox

an inventory of the necessary material conditions for the transfer of recorded information should not assume any conclusions as to the source of the transfer (i.e methodological discipline).

But it's not as if humans have never constructed systems the purpose of which is to transfer recorded information. Those systems and how and why they arose can still be studied to day. You have explicitly agreed; an accurate description of a system is essential to understanding it. One might say that understanding a system entails an accurate description of the system.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

The book was better. So was the movie. Mung

It is has been quite an eye-opener to be arguing with “Darwinian” materialists over the observed mechanism of Darwinian evolution. I noticed a passage from a link in regard to Darwinian mechanisms (replicators, the onset of information, etc) regarding the origin of life (an exchange between OoL philanthropist Harry Lonsdale and science writer Susan Mathur):

Harry Lonsdale: Can I back up before I answer that question. That sentence you read to me over the phone as to what I hoped it was people would give me in terms of their proposals, I must say I was very much underwhelmed by the breadth of their proposals. Even the experts I drew together in San Diego a month or so ago, even they don't have a single clear model of how life began. There's no universal agreement. We don't have a theory. We're a long way from home base. Probably 10 or 20 years away before we have a plausible model and even further out into the future before we can say we know how life began. I'll be dead before people can make that statement. Suzan Mazur: Is it because your background is in chemistry that you were more interested in proposals based on chemical approaches to origin of life? Harry Lonsdale: I would say that of the eight people on my panel, three at most were trained in chemistry, some were biochemists, there was one physicist, a space scientist and two biologists -- it was a pretty broad range of expertise. No engineers. I guess we underplayed the physical processes, but not intentionally. Suzan Mazur: But did you get proposals along those lines? Harry Lonsdale: A few. We had proposals that came in from every direction. Suzan Mazur: Chris McKay once told me the following: "The Darwinian paradigm breaks down in two obvious ways. First, and most clear, Darwinian selection cannot be responsible for the origin of life. Secondly, there is some thought that Darwinian selection cannot fully explain the rise of complexity at the molecular level. . . . It can't be Darwinian all the way down. . . . Darwinian selection only works when there's software. And everything that's prebiotic is hardware." Again, "life" has been defined on the Origin of Life Challenge website as "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution." My question is that by steering your prizewinning search for the origin of life in the direction of Darwinian science, which is now being seriously marginalized in light of the "evo-devo revolution" -- as Noam Chomsky put it -- and the evolution paradigm shift, with some of our most esteemed scientists declaring neo-Darwinism dead -- the accumulation of genetic mutations being enough to change one species to another having not been validated in the literature -- are you concerned that you and your panel may have angled the prize in the direction of false hypotheses? Harry Lonsdale: I think that first life was capable of evolution and that evolution began on that day that first life came into being. Was there evolution before that first life? I don't think that. Evolution is what brought that first life to you and me -- a long, long tedious process that took billions of years. We were hoping people might submit proposals covering the gamut, from first life to modern life. No proposals attempted to do that. It's too big a question right now. It's 2012 -- let's wait until 2025. Maybe by then people will have put the whole puzzle together, but right now we're looking at pieces, or pieces of pieces, of this puzzle. Suzan Mazur: What I'm questioning is the angling of the prize to Darwinian science which is now being marginalized. Harry Lonsdale: When you say angling toward. It's true. First life was angling toward but not yet there. Evolution came after the first life. Suzan Mazur: I asked Dave Deamer if life had a beginning or is it just part of a process inherent to the Universe. And he said, "It's part of a process." I also asked him if evolution started when the Universe was born. His response was "It depends on what you want to call evolution." Harry Lonsdale: Evolution is a process once life exists, is how I would put it.

“Darwinian evolution only works when there’s software”??? It sure sounds like these crazy researchers recognize that it's the existence of recorded information which facilitates the Darwinian mechanism. :) Don’t tell the fine folks at TSZ, as dogmatically as they fight for Darwin to have a seat at the information table, they’ll be so disappointed. Upright BiPed

RB at 1275, Was that your summation, counselor? Of all your posts here, which have included some real Deusies, your last was your weakest. You took all your previous attacks and positioning ploys (which each failed under examination) and simply ran them again in bulk, with plenty of “therefores” and “neverthelesses” tossed in for good measure. Perhaps you intended to imply the very thing you failed to demonstrate. Let’s look:

We learned that you believe that “massive organization” in the form of living agents is responsible for the origin of the translation of DNA into proteins on earth 3.5. billion years ago.

My statement is empirically-based, and is parsimonious with the universal observation that all instances of semiosis are produced from “massive pre-existing organization”. What we’ve learned is that your position turns on a personal metaphysic belief that agency was an impossibility prior to life on earth. Whereas my position acknowledges the material evidence (presented in my argument) remains unaltered by anyone's prior assumptions.

But we also learned that the inference that compels that conclusion isn’t applicable to those agents themselves, or the origin of ‘the entailments’/the TRI/a semiotic state anywhere else.

Yet again, this does nothing whatsoever to alter the material evidence. Our lack of knowledge being what it is; on one side of a rational line of inquiry appears an infinite regress (which informs us of nothing), and on the other side is the valid logic that if everything is contingent, then there must be something that is necessary. We can choose which side of that line satisfies us and we can contemplate why we choose among them. For generations materialists happily (and selectively) believed the universe was eternal and needed no explanation from where it came. You have chosen to not be agnostic on the matter, so throwing stones at the infinite regress (without having a solution) is hardly substantive.

We learned that semiotic theory per se does not assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. It therefore does not compel the conclusion that design is required. We learned that semiotic theory per se does not assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Therefore unguided processes are not excluded by semiotic theory.

Correct, an inventory of the necessary material conditions for the transfer of recorded information should not assume any conclusions as to the source of the transfer (i.e methodological discipline).

We therefore learned that claims such as “the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process” do not follow from semiotic theory, after all.

That comment was perfectly suited to the person it was made to; as evidence by the fact that she could not provide one. I have since invited you to provide one, which you failed to do.

We learned that, nevertheless, that construing a system as “semiotic” adds great value to the contemporary physicochemical (Thank you Allan)** description of the translation of DNA into proteins.

You have explicitly agreed; an accurate description of a system is essential to understanding it.

We also learned, however, that construing a system as “semiotic” yields no entailments beyond those that already follow from that physicochemical description. To ask for the same is “to impose on it questions that it does not answer.”

If that physicochemical description does not account for the arbitrary relationship which is universally observed in such systems (including the system under question) then that description cannot help but be incomplete. You are not arguing with the more comprehensive description because it adds nothing. Why the pretense otherwise, if not to mount a rhetorical defense?

When I asked for just one example, analogous to your arson tale, that illustrates that value, we learned that OoL researchers (and hordes of onlookers) can know with complete certainty that a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system must be accounted for in order to explain the origin of life. But that’s not really very specific, is it.

lol. Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

So I asked again for just one specific example illustrating how that ‘certain knowledge’ can in fact guide specific empirical research. We learned that we don’t get to learn that.

You want a specific example of how knowing ‘an arbitrary relationship must be instantiated in the system’ can assist those who are trying to replicate the system. You’re not that dumb, perhaps that obtuse.

We learned not only that contemporary Darwinian systems display ‘the entailments’/the TRI/a semiotic state, but that all Darwinian systems MUST display those entailments.

Correct, the Darwinian mechanism operates on the existence of recorded information. If there is recorded information, then the material conditions required for it will be present.

Simpler Darwinian systems aren’t possible. Not that you said they aren’t possible. But they aren’t, because you said so.

As already stated, a simpler system may or may not be possible. This does not change what universal observation and logical necessity demonstrates as necessary.

We should be grateful. You’ve spared researchers interested in, for example, the RNA world hypothesis (which postulates a replicating Darwinian system devoid of a distinction between genotype and phenotype) a great deal of work, because you have certain knowledge that such hypotheses must be wrong. These researchers should defer to your armchair and expend their efforts on something else.

Based on your own understanding of the issues, I don’t think you need to worry overmuch about OoL researchers. They are attempting to resolve the genotype/phenotype distinction, not ignore it or pretend it adds nothing to the conversation. You should try reading their work.

Oh, and we learned that when you make flatly, abjectly contradictory statements, to point that out is “obfuscation” and “word smithing.”

People who obfuscate issues for the express purpose of gaining a rhetorical benefit, never enjoy being called out for it. You are no different.

Oh yeah, we learned that you’re very concerned about my horse.

What you’ve demonstrated is that your personal metaphysical assumptions trump material evidence, universal observation and logical necessity – violating the first rule of science. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ** I was forced to return to TSZ in order to understand the reference to Allan Miller’s correction of the term “physiochemical”. I should thank Allan as well. Oddly enough, an OoL researcher I have read in the past typically referred to these relationships as “physicochemically inert”, which is a term I picked up and used for quite some time - only to face the same style of pointless questioning that Onlooker has made famous on this thread. So I simply went back to “materially arbitrary”. Not until Bill used the term “physiochemically arbitrary” on this thread did I return to that phrase (not noticing the slight distinction in spelling and hence meaning). Even more odd; my word processing software has no problem with “physiochemical” but always rejected “physicochemical”. In any case, it is good that we understood the each other without the fabricated misinterpretation which has been demonstrated elsewhere on this thread. Upright BiPed

McKay explained that Darwinian evolution, the dominant process on the planet, involves self-replication, a process only found in living things, and thus can't be responsible for the original creation of life.

http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/4835/the-origin-of-life-challenge-searching-for-how-life-began Mung

The Genotype/Phenotype Distinction Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

...the RNA world hypothesis...postulates a replicating Darwinian system devoid of a distinction between genotype and phenotype...

Again, an assertion for which not a single shred of evidence is offered. Bill, we're skeptics here. We require strong evidence in support of such claims. Mung

Oh yeah, we learned that you’re very concerned about my horse.

Your horse is dead Bill. You want us to be concerned over it's burial? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

- We learned that semiotic theory per se does not assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. It therefore does not compel the conclusion that design is required.

That's right Bill. Design is not a conclusion, it's an inference. How many times do we have to say this before you stop crowing over each instance where it's demonstrated to be true? Reciprocating Bill seems to think that design should be rejected since it does not follow as a logical deduction. RB:

But we also learned that the inference that compels that conclusion isn’t applicable to those agents themselves, or the origin of ‘the entailments’/the TRI/a semiotic state anywhere else.

An inference that compels a conclusion? That's what you are looking for? It's no surprise to me that "an inference that compels a conclusion" isn't applicable to whatever it is that you want to apply it to. What does that even mean? An inference that compels a conclusion. I don't even know what language that is. Bill, are you just making stuff up now?

- We also learned, however, that construing a system as “semiotic” yields no entailments beyond those that already follow from that physicochemical description.

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion from that paragon of skepticism, Reciprocating Bill. Nothing follows from a description. Fail at logic! sigh Are you the best that TSZ has to offer? Mung

UB:

Entirely gone are the smug claims of a complete and utter refutation of the argument in the OP

But we've learned so much. - We learned that you believe that "massive organization" in the form of living agents is responsible for the origin of the translation of DNA into proteins on earth 3.5. billion years ago. - But we also learned that the inference that compels that conclusion isn't applicable to those agents themselves, or the origin of 'the entailments'/the TRI/a semiotic state anywhere else. - We learned that semiotic theory per se does not assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. It therefore does not compel the conclusion that design is required. - We learned that semiotic theory per se does not assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Therefore unguided processes are not excluded by semiotic theory. - We therefore learned that claims such as "the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process" do not follow from semiotic theory, after all. - We learned that, nevertheless, that construing a system as "semiotic" adds great value to the contemporary physicochemical (Thank you Allan) description of the translation of DNA into proteins. - We also learned, however, that construing a system as "semiotic" yields no entailments beyond those that already follow from that physicochemical description. To ask for the same is "to impose on it questions that it does not answer." - Nevertheless, we learned that construing a system as "semiotic" can still be very valuable. - When I asked for just one example, analogous to your arson tale, that illustrates that value, we learned that OoL researchers (and hordes of onlookers) can know with complete certainty that a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system must be accounted for in order to explain the origin of life. - But that's not really very specific, is it. Not as specific as a one paragraph fire tetrahedron fable in which you imagine putting me on trial for arson. (Freud smiles somewhere). - So I asked again for just one specific example illustrating how that ‘certain knowledge’ can in fact guide specific empirical research. - We learned that we don't get to learn that. - We learned not only that contemporary Darwinian systems display 'the entailments'/the TRI/a semiotic state, but that all Darwinian systems MUST display those entailments. Simpler Darwinian systems aren't possible. Not that you said they aren't possible. But they aren't, because you said so. We should be grateful. You've spared researchers interested in, for example, the RNA world hypothesis (which postulates a replicating Darwinian system devoid of a distinction between genotype and phenotype) a great deal of work, because you have certain knowledge that such hypotheses must be wrong. These researchers should defer to your armchair and expend their efforts on something else. - Oh, and we learned that when you make flatly, abjectly contradictory statements, to point that out is "obfuscation" and "word smithing." - Oh yeah, we learned that you're very concerned about my horse. Reciprocating Bill

keiths:

Darwinian evolution doesn’t require a genotype/phenotype distinction. If you have replication with heritable variation and differential reproductive success, then you have Darwinian evolution.

All assertion. No evidence. In true "skeptical" (read TSZ) style.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

A trait is a distinct variant of a phenotypic character of an organism that may be inherited, be environmentally determined or be a combination of the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_trait

Darwinism originally included broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

The central dogma of molecular biology describes the flow of genetic information within a biological system. It was first stated by Francis Crick in 1958[1] and re-stated in a Nature paper published in 1970:[2] Information flow in biological systems The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. Or, as Marshall Nirenberg said, "DNA makes RNA makes protein."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology Why are we teaching these people about Darwinian evolution? Shouldn't they know this already? Mung

Can you at least attempt to demonstrate that the observations in the argument are false, or that the conclusions do not logically follow from those observations? Mung

RB at 1269,

we can know with complete certainty* that a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system must be accounted for in order to explain the Origin of Life.**

*(With “complete certainty,” eh? Modest, much?) **(Which again assumes the conclusion that simpler precursor replicators lacking some or all of your “entailments” are impossible.)

* I am also certain that a fire requires a heat source, fuel, and oxydizer. ** The argument in the OP is not about whether or not a simpler precursor replicates while lacking some or all of the entailments described in my argument. Its about what is materially necessary to transfer and translate recorded information, including that within the genome. Can you demonstrate that the observations in the argument are false, or that the conclusions do not logically follow from those obsverations? Upright BiPed

RB at 1268, Entirely gone are the smug claims of a complete and utter refutation of the argument in the OP, now you've atrophied to the point of wordsmithing a side exchange which does nothing whatsoever to refute the observations or logic in the argument.

There is only one possible referent of “you say that a simpler system is possible,” namely my recent statements referring to hypothesized simpler Darwinian precursors

Then I needn't waste any more time trying to get you to acknowledge the distinction between a merely simpler system versus one that does not require recorded information, such as the Darwinian mechanism. If the entire planet's inventory of biology textbooks and research papers are not enough for you grasp this distinction, then what hope do I have? By the way... the immediate referent of my comment was your claim: “Darwinian evolution is not dependent upon the presence of the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state in order to function. That claim inaccurately conveys the essential elements upon which the Darwinian process depends.” ...which is demonstrably false. Darwinian evolution is a material process which is wholly depedent upon information materially recorded in the genome. And as far as the transfer of genetic information not exemplifying a semiotic state, that is the claim which you have been so clearly unable to refute. So in one hand you'd like to make statements completely contrary to the universal observations of biology, and in the other you'd like to simply assume your conclusion (which you admit is a purely hypothetical belief to begin with). Very convincing. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill:

How would someone with your views, skills, interests and intuitions put that knowledge to empirical work?

Red herring. How is your hypothetical simpler system for which you have no actual empirical evidence distinguishable from the system set out in the OP? Croak Mung

UB:

we can know with complete certainty* that a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system must be accounted for in order to explain the Origin of Life.**

What I am asking for is an illustration of how that 'certain knowledge' can guide specific empirical research. You say that it can guide researchers (and hordes of onlookers) in many ways, depending upon their views, skills, interests, and intuitions. Will you please provide an example (there should be many) at the level of specificity present in your fantasy of putting me on trial for arson? An example of that certain knowledge making a difference to empirical research. How would someone with your views, skills, interests and intuitions put that knowledge to empirical work? *(With "complete certainty," eh? Modest, much?) **(Which again assumes the conclusion that simpler precursor replicators lacking some or all of your "entailments" are impossible.) Reciprocating Bill

UB:

Your obfuscation is deliberate.

Now now. UB at 1256:

You say that a simpler system is capable. I have not claimed it impossible.

There is only one possible referent of "you say that a simpler system is possible," namely my recent statements referring to hypothesized simpler Darwinian precursors:

The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication and variation.

To ensure there was no misunderstanding:

The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation, and differential reproduction – IOW, a simpler process that that is nevertheless Darwinian.

And again:

a Darwinian process starting with much simpler replicators can have given rise to that apparatus...Of course, “can” denotes an hypothesis, not a conclusion."

Obviously the "simpler system" to which I refer is an hypothesized precursor in the form of a simpler Darwinian system. With that in mind: UB:

You say that a simpler system is capable. I have not claimed it impossible.

Has only one reading:

You say that a simpler system is capable. I have not claimed it [the simpler Darwinian precursor you hypothesize] impossible.

Yet obviously you have. Reciprocating Bill

Mung: It seems there is not a grasping that the chaining chemistry in effect simply clicks the chain together [making a string structure], the key differentiating aspect is in the side branches, which then lead to functionally specific outcomes on folding, agglomeration and/or activation. Moreover, the CCA coupler that loads an AA to a tRNA is a universal joint too. It is the configuration of the tRNA that sets up the specific AA to be loaded by the specific "loading enzyme." Which brings in a chicken-egg situation -- actually twenty or so of them. Then, the mRNA specifying the AA sequence starting with Methionine is determined INFORMATIONALLY based on the function of tRNA, mRNA, ribosome and the dozens of support players in the properly organised cell. Where, as I have repeatedly highlighted, something like a prick and decant into solution exercise underscores just how isolated correct, workable functional configs are in the space of physically possible arrangements. That is, multipart function based on specific config naturally leads to islands of function and it is those who would dismiss this who properly have a burden of warrant to meet. Not seeing the pivotal role of information and functionally specific organisation here, is a case of patently selective hyperskepticism that has to be worked at. Probably, due to where all of this naturally and strongly points. Namely, to the very strong induction that FSCO/I comes from design. KF kairosfocus

How do we represent a three dimensional structure with structural, mechanical or catalytic function(s) as a linear digital sequence? Can this be done by a system composed of a single part? Is that even a coherent question? Mung

A polypeptide is a single linear polymer chain of amino acids bonded together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues. The sequence of amino acids in a protein is defined by the sequence of a gene, which is encoded in the genetic code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein onlooker:

We can model transcription and translation as a code, but in fact what is actually happening is just biochemistry.

That has to be one of the most ignorant comments ever uttered. Mung

RB at 1258, Sure, no problem; its already been done. Just like the fire investigator knowing with complete certainty that a heat source had to be accounted for in order to explain the fire, so too, among the cadre of competitive OoL researchers and the hordes of onlookers, we can know with complete certainty that a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system must be accounted for in order to explain the Origin of Life. How that critical requirement serves any individual person would depend on their own views, skills, interests, and intuitions. The more the merrier. Upright BiPed

RB at 1260, Your obfuscation is deliberate. Here is exactly what I said:

I do not assume that the current system cannot have a precursor, and frankly, the precursor has no bearing on the observation being made. The current system is Darwinian evolution, which is based on the existence of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated into a physical system; the genotype-phenotype distinction (i.e. form recorded in an information-bearing medium, and the subsequent material production of that form). That relationship is absolutely fundamental to the operation of the system, and it requires very specific material conditions. The issue is the origination of those conditions. Hardly excluding a precursor (of some kind) to the establishment of the current system, one would be quite obviously necessary. But that precursor won’t be Darwinian evolution because until the material conditions exist which instantiate that physiochemically-arbitrary relationship, there is no Darwinian evolution.

Upright BiPed

How much is a Darwinian promissory note worth? Mung

What he said, Bill, is that the system is irreducibly complex. It does not follow that a simpler system is not possible. Mung

UB at 1186:

Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function. The presence of recorded information requires very specific material conditions in order to exist. Darwinian evolution cannot be the cause of those specific material conditions.

RB:

The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication and variation. IOW, a simpler process that is nevertheless Darwinian.

UB at 1256:

You say that a simpler system is capable. I have not claimed it impossible.

Well, yes you have. Reciprocating Bill

You're honor, it was all just physics and chemistry. Mung

UB:

Obviously, knowing that the necessary conditions for an accidental fire were present on that starry night in July was useless information.

Now construct an analogous narrative illustrating how knowledge of the necessary conditions for the the TRI (the entailments), have guided, or potentially could guide, investigation into the origins of the the translation of DNA into proteins. If you can, supply specifics similar in degree of detail to those in your imagined tale. Reciprocating Bill

Bill’s neighbor’s barn burned down last July, and because they had been feuding all month long, Bill was charged with the crime of arson. At his trial, the prosecution's witnesses told the jury that a suspicious can of fuel had been found very near the barn and he confidently boasted in front of the jury that “the fire didn’t just start itself”. Bill’s defense attorney began to show photographs of several other spare cans of fuel that the neighbor kept lying around his property, but even more importantly, he had information that a small fire was started just a half mile away on the previous night and eyewitnesses claimed the fire was started by blowing embers from an industrial smokestack across the road. He sought to introduce into evidence their trash burning records from July, but the Judge refused to allow the evidence. Obviously, knowing that the necessary conditions for an accidental fire were present on that starry night in July was useless information. :) Upright BiPed

RB at 1249,

UB: Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function. RB: Darwinian evolution is not dependent upon the presence of the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state in order to function.

Note the difference in these two sentences. This is simply an assertion on your part. What you have failed to do is engage the evidence presented in the argument and demonstrate it to be false in any way whatsoever.

That claim inaccurately conveys the essential elements upon which the Darwinian process depends.

The claim conveys the fact that Darwinian evolution is dependent upon the presence of recorded information by means of chemical pattern within the gene. "ALTHOUGH THE FIELD OF GENETICS attained a high degree of sophistication years ago, the molecular basis of genetic information storage and retrieval lagged behind. Only within the last IO years has the chemical structure of DNA been established, mainly through the work of Chargaff et al. (3), Wilkins et al. (2g), and Watson and Crick (28). Some 8 years ago Gamow (5) proposed a theoretical code and thereby- stimulated a great deal of interest in this problem. The direct biochemical approach, that is, comparison of the nucleotide sequence of a gene with the amino acid sequence of its corresponding protein, posed technical problems of great magnitude. Some of these difficulties have been circumvented by the experimental approach summarized here". - (Marshal Nirenberg, Approximation of Genetic Code via cell-free protein synthesis directed by template RNA, Feb 1963) I am not going to argue this point with you. What we have in the real world is a system of organismal replication which copies both its information as well as the machinery capable of translating that information into material products. I have given you an argument as to what is materially necessary for the translation of that information. You say that a simpler system is capable. I have not claimed it impossible. However, possible or not, what is necessary to transfer recorded information is not refuted merely by you making a claim.

Replication, variation and differential reproduction do not require the entire contemporary apparatus construed by UB as “the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.” Therefore a Darwinian process starting with much simpler replicators can have given rise to that apparatus.

Firstly, the apparatus in my argument is comprised of an arrangement of matter to evoke an effect within a system, and a second arrangement of matter to determine what that effect will be. This system physically establishes a necessary (fundamental) arbitrariness in the system so that information may be recorded in a medium (a gene) and result in a product that is not the medium itself. Secondly, the claim that replication, variation, and differential reproduction do not require the transfer of recorded information is a claim that has no evidence whatsoever anywhere on Earth. It’s just an unsupported claim. In this passage, you then make a non-sequitur to a second claim based on the unsupported content of the first.

Of course, “can” denotes an hypothesis, not a conclusion. That hypothesis remains to be fully cashed out empirically.

Meaning there are exactly zero examples to support your claim that replication can exist without the transfer of recorded information, as described in the argument at the top of this page.

No one is claiming to have solved the Ool, or the origins of the current genetic system.

reservation before modesty

And, as Lizzie stated, the origin of the simplest precursor replicators remains to be understood, as they indeed can’t have arisen by a Darwinian process.

facepalm Upright BiPed

RB at 1248

Of course an accurate characterization of the explanandum is important. We have that in the contemporary physiochemical understanding of the process. It is the additional construal, “it displays ‘the entailments’/the TRI/a semiotic state” that is useless. There is nothing contradictory in that.

What is contradictory is to say we need an accurate description of a system, and then deny an accurate description of the system because it doesn’t suit your personal preferences (even though you can’t refute it). Any physiochemical description of the system that does not account for the known physiochemical realities of the system is obviously an incomplete description. So if someone should propose an example of a system that did not match the valid observations of the original system, the value of having an accurate description of the original system becomes rather self-evident. Our understanding of material systems has always been advanced by a progression of more accurate models of reality (i.e. biosemiosis for instance) yet you have made it clear that you prefer to ignore these particular observations as opposed to integrating them. You choose to not integrate them not because they make your preferred explanation impossible, but because a more comprehensive and accurate description of the system presents additional hurdles for your preferred explanation to achieve. The actual validity of the observations does not even enter into it, which is why your personal judgment of them as useless is so transparent. Specifically, what you’ve failed to do is show that the observations at the top of this page are untrue, or that the conclusions do not follow from those observations. This is evidenced by the fact that you prejudice them, instead of proving them false.

For “It displays the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state” to improve upon the current description, testable empirical consequences must follow from that further characterization beyond those that follow from the physiochemical description. As you say, “Like, what it entailed?”

In the service of your ideology, you continue to have a serious problem with methodological discipline. What you say here is flatly untrue. The argument presented above needn’t do any more than it does; it employs universal observation and logical necessity to establish what is materially necessary for the transfer of recorded information. But you want to impose on it questions that it does not answer. You do this for the express purpose that you might grant yourself the luxury of ignoring it. It is a deliberate contrivance on your part, supporting a deliberate act of denial. The fire tetrahedron cannot tell you if a fire was set by any particular source, it can only tell you what is materially necessary for a fire to be confirmed. But no matter what the source of the fire, the fire tetrahedron will always remain true. It does not become useless to the investigator, notwithstanding your lack of discipline. Clearly, it is not what the argument ‘does not say’ that you wish to ignore, it’s what it does say. Upright BiPed

When you have problems admitting that the genetic code is a code . . . kairosfocus

onlooker @1242:

Eric Anderson, I see you’ve returned to the discussion. I am very interested in reading your response to my 1177. Since Upright BiPed is so reluctant to answer direct questions posed by skeptics, the input of someone who supports his views could be very helpful in understanding what he is trying to say.

Well, I'm flattered by your request for a response, but I'm more of a drive-by commenter on this thread. :) I don't have the patience to deal with silly definitional battles over commonly-understood words like "arbitrary" that serve as smoke and mirrors to avoid the substantive issues. I am not purposely avoiding your #1177, just didn't notice it until now, so apologies for the late reply. You said:

You are mistaking the map for the territory. We can model transcription and translation as a code, but in fact what is actually happening is just biochemistry.

Wait. Are you saying there is no genetic code? Let's be extremely clear about this. What happens in transcription and translation is not just like a code or modeled after a code. It is based on a real code. There isn't a genetics textbook or university course on bioinformatics around that disputes this.

If you have a moment, please consider these two statements: S1. The fact that the processes of transcription and translation that result in protein synthesis involve a multistep chemical pathway justifies a conclusion of ID. S2. The ability of humans to model part of the protein synthesis process as an encoding of information justifies a conclusion of ID. Do either of these correspond to your understanding of Upright BiPed’s argument?

S1 - No. A multistep chemical pathway, in and of itself, does not justify a conclusion of ID. The stuff rotting in my compost is undergoing a multistep chemical process. There are multistep chemical processes that can happen by purely natural and material means. [Please note, this is not to say that certain multistep biochemical processes would not provide a valid inference to design. Indeed, we have good reason to infer that many of the processes taking place in organisms are intelligently designed.] S2. As I have said, your question is based on a faulty understanding of what actually exists. We're not talking about modeling things just for our convenience. We're talking about code and information that actually -- objectively and discoverably -- exists in living organisms. On your last question, I'm not sure you have understood UB's argument. His argument is quite simple and clear. Namely, we see in living organisms a semiotic system (in the very well-understood sense of the term; look up "semiotics" in the dictionary if needed); and this semiotic system is substantively the same as other semiotic systems we are familiar with. Eric Anderson

petrushka:

Languages present the best analogy I can think of for evolution. They are semiotic, their elements are discrete, their implementation is always physical. Yet they evolve. we have written histories showing their evolution in great detail.

Why would something semiotic be a good analogy unless there is something about life that is semiotic? Mung

Allan Miller:

“No-one has refuted …” amounts to “No-one has been able to persuade me that my opinion that protein translation is a ‘truly’ semiotic system is incorrect, nor that the material observation of the universality of protein translation. in modern life does not force as a logical necessity that this system needed to be devised before the OoL.”

Are you a translation denier, Allan? Mung

Bill, could you let us know when you've come up with something new? This same old same old is boring as heck and starting to make you indistinguishable from onlooker. Er. Croak. Mung

This statement is true:

Darwinian evolution doesn’t explain how replication with heritable variation in reproductive success first came into being.

Nevertheless, this argument fails:

Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function. The presence of recorded information requires very specific material conditions in order to exist. Darwinian evolution cannot be the cause of those specific material conditions.

It fails because it is built upon a false premise. Darwinian evolution is not dependent upon the presence of the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state in order to function. That claim inaccurately conveys the essential elements upon which the Darwinian process depends. Darwinian evolution is dependent upon replication and variation resulting in differential reproduction. Replication, variation and differential reproduction do not require the entire contemporary apparatus construed by UB as "the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state." Therefore a Darwinian process starting with much simpler replicators can have given rise to that apparatus. Of course, "can" denotes an hypothesis, not a conclusion. That hypothesis remains to be fully cashed out empirically. No one is claiming to have solved the Ool, or the origins of the current genetic system. And, as Lizzie stated, the origin of the simplest precursor replicators remains to be understood, as they indeed can't have arisen by a Darwinian process. What does follow is that UB's conclusion that Darwinian evolution cannot have given rise to the complex, contemporary DNA -> protein transcription processes because it necessarily requires that processes to function is founded on a false premise, and is therefore false. It does not. Reciprocating Bill

UB:

What is a “crucial element” to the search for causation is also useless to the search for causation. Perfect.

Of course an accurate characterization of the explanandum is important. We have that in the contemporary physiochemical understanding of the process. It is the additional construal, "it displays 'the entailments'/the TRI/a semiotic state" that is useless. There is nothing contradictory in that. For "It displays the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state" to improve upon the current description, testable empirical consequences must follow from that further characterization beyond those that follow from the physiochemical description. As you say, "Like, what it entailed?" The question then becomes: What follows from "the entailments"/the TRI/a semiotic state" that does not follow from the contemporary physiochemical understanding of the process? Let's ask UB: UB, what does “a semiotic state” (and therefore the presence of “the entailments” and the TRI) entail that a contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? Here are some things you have already unambiguously stated do NOT follow upon identifying the system as semiotic: - It does not follow that the system must have had intelligent or agentic origins (including living agents).? - It does not follow that the system could not have arisen by unguided means. Then, what DOES necessarily follow? What DOES follow from characterizing the transcription of DNA as “a semiotic state” that does not follow from a description of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA? Absent a response, semiotic theory is empirically useless, even at the margins. And absent a response we are. Reciprocating Bill

onlooker:

Darwinian evolution requires only heritable variation of traits resulting in differential reproductive success.

word salad. 1. Darwinian evolution requires living organisms. Mung

In genetics, a feature of a living thing is called a "trait"....Genes are made from a long molecule called DNA, which is copied and inherited across generations. DNA is made of simple units that line up in a particular order within this large molecule. The order of these units carries genetic information, similar to how the order of letters on a page carries information. The language used by DNA is called the genetic code, which allows the genetic machinery to read the information in the genes in triplet sets of codons. This information is the instructions for constructing and operating a living organism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics onlooker. information denier, gene denier, reality denier. Mung

Trait may refer to: Phenotypic trait in biology, which involve genes and characteristics of organisms:

A visible trait is the final product of many molecular and biochemical processes. In most cases, information starts with DNA traveling to RNA and finally to protein (ultimately affecting organism structure and function). This is the central dogma of molecular biology as stated by Francis Crick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_trait

Phenotypic variation (due to underlying heritable genetic variation) is a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection. It is the living organism as a whole that contributes (or not) to the next generation, so natural selection affects the genetic structure of a population indirectly via the contribution of phenotypes. Without phenotypic variation, there would be no evolution by natural selection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_character

Francis Crick's central dogma of molecular biology, ... is a statement about the directionality of molecular sequential information flowing from DNA to protein, and not the reverse.

onlooker. code denier, information denier, trait denier. Mung

onlooker:

Non sequitur. Nowhere in what you quoted has Dr. Liddle suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process.

Dr. Liddle has a prior history here at UD. I suggest you look into it. onlooker:

I note that you also failed to address the bulk of my 1210 where I explained why your attempt to apply your tortured definitions to the essential requirements of Darwinian evolution — heritable variation of traits related to reproductive success — doesn’t change the reality of what we observe in the real world.

Well, considering that you dwell in an alternate reality, that may be true for your "reality," but it's not true of ours. In ours we have only one system to consider because we observe only one system.

What you seem to be saying, in what is now clearly a deliberately obfuscatory manner, is that since protein translation is a multistep process and because different nucleotide-amino acid mappings can be imagined, the process meets your idiosyncratic definition of a “semiotic system”.

No, that's not the argument. IOW, the obfuscation is all yours. As usual. onlooker:

So what? How does this lead to a conclusion of ID?

Channeling Reciprocating Bill now are we? Run out of your own tired material? onlooker:

As already noted, Darwinian evolution requires only heritable variation of traits resulting in differential reproductive success.

Says who? What's a trait? What is required for a trait to be heritable? onlooker:

You also need to defend that claim of “irreducible complexity” with more than mere assertion.

That's easily enough accomplished, but what would be the point?

Everything we observe is known chemistry and physics.

Can you explain how one "observes" a code? Can you explain how one observes anything at all without physics and chemistry? onlooker:

I am very interested in reading your response to my 1177.

Eric probably agrees with the following: A person who denies that the genetic code is an actual code is not worth wasting any of your time on. Troll. Mung

Onlooker,

Non sequitur. Nowhere in what you quoted has Dr. Liddle suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process.

I am not responsible for your infamous inability to comprehend. If you could not grasp the positions as we lead into our exchange, then perhaps you can grasp them from her words after the exchange was over:

Dr Liddle:"You know, Upright BiPed, you are absolutely right! Darwinian evolution doesn’t explain how replication with heritable variation in reproductive success first came into being!"

Please note: Darwinian evolution >> doesn’t explain >> how replication >> came in being Upright BiPed

Eric Anderson, I see you've returned to the discussion. I am very interested in reading your response to my 1177. Since Upright BiPed is so reluctant to answer direct questions posed by skeptics, the input of someone who supports his views could be very helpful in understanding what he is trying to say. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Well, my primary point is that the transfer of recorded information in the genome requires two arrangements of matter; one which evokes an effect within the system by virtue of its arrangement (which is physiochemically-arbitrary to the effect it evokes), as well as a second arrangement which must physically establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its effect (while preserving the arbitrary relationship in the system). So whatever the source of the system, it has to be able to establish this semiotic state.

This seems to be a restatement of your fourth paragraph of word salad that you steadfastly resist clarifying. What you seem to be saying, in what is now clearly a deliberately obfuscatory manner, is that since protein translation is a multistep process and because different nucleotide-amino acid mappings can be imagined, the process meets your idiosyncratic definition of a "semiotic system". So what? How does this lead to a conclusion of ID?

And my second point is that the transfer of biological information is not only the oldest and most prodigious form of irreducible complexity on Earth, but is the very thing required for Darwinian evolution to even exist.

As already noted, Darwinian evolution requires only heritable variation of traits resulting in differential reproductive success. You can call it by as many names as you like, but just because you can model it as an information transfer process (if you'd ever summon the intellectual integrity to define terms like "information" doesn't mean you can get away with equivocating and saying "Therefore ID." You also need to defend that claim of "irreducible complexity" with more than mere assertion. Everything we observe is known chemistry and physics. Unless you can produce some objective, empirical evidence instead of your word games, your "argument" doesn't support ID in any way. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker: No scientist I am aware of has suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process. That would be foolish.

Really?

Dr Elizabeth Liddle: …my position is that IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes. Dr Elizabeth Liddle: I simply do not accept the tenet that replication with modification + natural selection cannot introduce “new information” into the genome. It demonstrably can, IMO, on any definition of information I am aware of. Upright BiPed: Neo-Darwinism doesn’t have a mechanism to bring information into existence in the first place. To speak freely of what it can do with information once it exists, is to ignore the 600lbs assumption in the room. Dr Elizabeth Liddle: Well, tell me what definition of information you are using, and I’ll see if I can demonstrate that it can.

Non sequitur. Nowhere in what you quoted has Dr. Liddle suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process. I note that you also failed to address the bulk of my 1210 where I explained why your attempt to apply your tortured definitions to the essential requirements of Darwinian evolution -- heritable variation of traits related to reproductive success -- doesn't change the reality of what we observe in the real world. Like the rest of your "semiotic argument", where it is not incoherent it is simply useless in supporting ID. onlooker

LoL!:oops: Joe

Joe, I think you're quoting Upright BiPed and attributing the quote to Running Bill. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that they are lacking in evidence, much less strong evidence. So much for the alleged skepticism. Mung

RB:

The materialist’s proposed precursor to genetic translation and recorded information is invariably a physiochemical mechanism, originating from purely physiochemical initial conditions.

Great, you still need evidence for that. And you don't have any. I would love to get any of the TSZ ilk to testify at Dover II. Then the whole world could see what a crock of stupidy they are. Joe

EA: The matter is worse, mere self replication of a molecule does not get us to the coded, step by step [algorithmic] process we see in the living cell, in both its metabolism and its reproduction. And that is without looking at the implied needle in haystack search issue. What is happening in these threads is that we re seeing an a priori imposition of materialism as what MUST explain, so any rhetorical dismissal of or distraction from counter-evidence is deemed plausible, regardless of the actual weight on merits, as they cannot allow that shadow at their door that they fear so much. That is what I have been driven to by observing cases like the prolonged debate over the meaning and usage of "arbitrary." And of course, the 6,000 word essay challenge -- remember, if they had a solid positive case on the evidence that explains OOL and OO body plans per blind chance and necessity, it would devastate design thought -- stands unanswered as the third month draws near. KF kairosfocus

UB @ 1234: Indeed. Has anyone? . . . Didn't think so. :) Eric Anderson

#1230 Has Keith provided an example of a self-replicating molecule yet? No? Upright BiPed

Bill on Terms:

The Attack: “I assert (not suggest) that you do not understand entailment, and due to your failure to grasp entailment you have constructed an argument beset with a fatal logical flaw.” The Concession: (if a specific thing only exists under specific conditions, then does its existence entail the existence of those specific conditions?) “Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment.”

Bill on Logic:

The Attack: “It does not follow from “A entails B” that “B entails A.” Therefore B cannot confirm A” The Concession: “Of course if the necessary and sufficient conditions of a phenomenon are present, then phenomenon is present – as I stated above (B is the necessary and sufficient conditions for A. Therefore B -> A.)”

Bill on Contradictions:

The Attack: “semiotic theory as you have articulated has nothing to say regarding causal origins of the phenomenon in question … and therefore has no other empirical uses” The Concession: “Of course a description of the system we wish to understand is a crucial element in the search for causes.”

:) What is a “crucial element” to the search for causation is also useless to the search for causation. Perfect. - - - - - - - - - - - What is missing from all this?? Any effort whatsoever to address and refute the evidence given in the argument. Upright BiPed

UB: "The genetic translation of nucleotide to proteins is semiotic [present coherent evidence] and will therefore require a mechanism capable of creating a semiotic state." RB: Your argument is circular! I need not even address the evidence! It’s illogical! It’s a non-sequitur! Your argument is fatally flawed whether it’s true or not! My counter-argument doesn’t need evidence! You make no observations! We should exclude your observations! You assume your conclusions! Your argument presents no conclusions! Genetics doesn’t need genes anyway! :| Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill,

By the way, do your responses to the following directly contradict one another, or do they not? RB: Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? UB: No. RB: You have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state UB: Except, of course, that it does.

This line of questioning has already been answered. You immediately minimized the answer given, and did so under the desperate lure of being able to claim a contradiction on my part. The lure of this claim is demonstrated by your constant repetition of the set up, and its value to you is in direct proportion to how exhausted you’ve become trying to escape the material evidence. We should revisit the previous exchange:

RB: Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? UB: No. RB: Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? UB: No.

From this, we see that you asked me if the semiotic argument ‘asserted’ whether any particular mechanism could or could not be the source of the semiotic state. I answered with an unambiguous “No” to both questions. The purpose of the semiotic argument is to provide a coherent inventory of the material conditions required to transfer recorded information, and to argue for the validity of those conditions. You then asked me to qualify the value of the semiotic argument in its ability to offer insight (or “constraint” as you called it) on the search for a cause of the system. You pursued this by asking me to answer a set of follow up questions:

[H]ow can the theory itself can be said to constrain the set of possible causal mechanisms? Would it not be silent on causation?

Here (again) is my answer, which you will first agree with, then immediately minimize in order to pursue your rhetoric:

UB: What else constrains the evaluation of a “set of possible causal mechanisms” if not what is necessary for them to accomplish? Are you suggesting that we should attempt to apprehend a causal mechanism without understanding what is necessary? Are you suggesting that all causal mechanisms are equal? If these are not what you are suggesting, then knowing ‘what is necessary’ helps to illuminate any proposition to follow. Do you disagree?

And here is where the deliberate obfuscation of material evidence begins. First you agree with me that understanding what is necessary is a “crucial element” in the search for a cause:

Of course a description of the system we wish to understand is a crucial element in the search for causes.

Then you immediately ignore what you’ve just said, in order to distance yourself from the implications of that understanding. The obvious step is to call into question the value of the agreement:

The question is, does adding “the system is semiotic” as defined in semiotic theory to that description add anything of value to our current physiochemical understanding?

Having selected a question to minimize your previous agreement, the time has come to lean into it, and flatly contradict yourself about the obvious usefulness of having a valid description of the system.

Given that you have unambiguously stated that semiotic theory neither requires nor excludes a particular kind of causation, I don’t see that adding “semiosis” to the description we already have adds anything of value, or aids in that search.

This, of course, is intellectual garbage. It’s empirical garbage. The materialist’s proposed precursor to genetic translation and recorded information is invariably a physiochemical mechanism, originating from purely physiochemical initial conditions. Yet, a nucleic triplet is an isolated, iterative causal structure in that same translation process, and is a rate-independent structure, not reducible to its lowest potential energy state. It evokes a specific effect within that system which it has no physiochemical relationship with, requiring a second coordinated structure within the system to establish their otherwise non-existent relationship (which is performed in temporal and spatial isolation). And as a culture warrior in a cheap tuxedo, you want to suggest that this observable material reality is unimportant to understanding the system. It’s pure anti-intellectualism. And you are a fine example of the breed. Good luck to ya. Upright BiPed

keiths:

After admitting to Reciprocating Bill that his argument doesn’t support a design inference, he is now trying to limit the damage caused by that admission.

An assertion made without a single shred of supporting evidence to back it up. No 'skeptic' has any reason to believe it, so why are you posting it at The Skeptical Zone?

Meanwhile, his argument [is] falsified by cases of information transfer that don’t require both a representation and a protocol

No, it isn't. You fail at truth, and at logic. No doubt there's a relationship between the two failures.

His argument is thus both useless and wrong.

Yet you managed to understand it, a feat onlooker hasn't even managed to perform yet. What a coterie of useless critics. Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

But does it follow from the modern synthesis that this system cannot have had as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation and differential reproduction? It does not.

But does it follow from the modern synthesis that this system must have had as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation and differential reproduction? It does not. It must follow then, that it is worthless. Wise. Croak. Mung

The theory of evolution does NOT assert that a certain class or classes of mechanisms is required to create the biological diversification observed, therefor Intelligent Design is perfectly acceptable under evolutionism’s framework. Joe

By the way, do your responses to the following directly contradict one another, or do they not? RB:

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

RB:

…You have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state

UB:

Except, of course, that it does.

Reciprocating Bill

And yet another evidence-free rant by Reciprocating Bill. It is easy to see that evos are just upset because they cannot provide any evidence that supports the claims of their position, Joe

UB:

Genes gene genetic genes genetic genetic genetic genes gene.

Well pasted (from an essay at Talkorigins penned by Larry Moran, of all people). But does it follow from the modern synthesis that this system cannot have had as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation and differential reproduction? It does not. Your definition of Darwinism to the contrary is faulty, contrived to compel a particular, assumed conclusion. UB:

If someone should suggest that a particular mechanism or a particular class of mechanism was responsible for creating a particular event, does that mechanism have to actually be capable of creating that event? If it does, (and to me, it really does seems like it should), then wouldn’t someone need to know what that event was? Like, what it entailed?

Which delivers you directly to a question I posed above: What does “a semiotic state” (and therefore the presence of “the entailments” and the TRI) entail that a contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? Here are some things you have already unambiguously stated do NOT follow upon identifying the system as semiotic: - It does not follow that the system must have had intelligent or agentic origins (including living agents). - It does not follow that the system could not have arisen by unguided means. Then, what DOES necessarily follow? What DOES follow from characterizing the transcription of DNA as “a semiotic state” that does not follow from a description of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA? For your reference, your evasion:

I didn’t play that game then. I’m not playing it now either.

Notice that, "observation of the the necessary and sufficient conditions of a semiotic state (observation of "the entailments") is entailed upon characterizing the system as a semiotic state" gets you nowhere (it never did), because the question at hand is what class or classes of causes can and cannot give rise to those "entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state" in the first place. Reciprocating Bill

RB,

RB: There is nothing in semiotic theory, and certainly nothing in Darwinism, that requires a genotype-phenotype distinction for replication, variation and differential reproduction, which define a Darwinian mechanism.

Really?

Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma; "The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)." - Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12 This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects: 1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection. 2. It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene. 3. It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution. In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists.

Just think of it...Evolution without the gene. The Modern Synthesis may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but clearly, as you point out, it was completely unnecessary. Evolution is gene free. It just happens. Let me write that down. - - - - - - - - - - - - While you are at the peak of your game, may I please ask one other question? If someone should suggest that a particular mechanism or a particular class of mechanism was responsible for creating a particular event, does that mechanism have to actually be capable of creating that event? If it does, (and to me, it really does seems like it should), then wouldn’t someone need to know what that event was? Like, what it entailed? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill, Do the facts hurt, or are they like water off a duck's back to you? We have what we have. We have the system that we have. What we don't have is some hypothetical system for which you have no evidence and thus cannot even begin to demonstrate relevance. The requirements are what they are, and they are not something else. Let us know when you can demonstrate otherwise. Bud. Croak. Mung

UB:

You mean, like a genome?

Absolutely. There is nothing in semiotic theory, and certainly nothing in Darwinism, that requires a genotype-phenotype distinction for replication, variation and differential reproduction, which define a Darwinian mechanism. Your definition of Darwinism is faulty, constructed in that way to compel a particular conclusion. That conclusion is false. RB:

But you have affirmed that nothing in semiotic theory asserts that a particular class or classes of mechanisms cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, which entailments include, “a physiochemically arbitrary relationship.”

UB:

Correct.

Thank you. There is nothing in semiotic theory asserts that a particular class or classes of mechanisms cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, which entailments include, “a physiochemically arbitrary relationship.” I think we've got that nailed down. RB:

Your response omits commentary on the fact that your statements flatly, abjectly contradict one another.

UB:

Bill, you asked if I asserted ‘what can and cannot produce a semiotic state’ in my argument. You needn’t have even asked; the text of the argument is at the top of this page, and clearly no such assertion appears there…etc. etc. etc...

Do your responses to the following directly contradict one another, or do they not? RB:

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

? RB:

…You have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state

UB:

Except, of course, that it does.

Reciprocating Bill

Reciprocating Bill,

A lengthier reproduction of your assumed conclusion. The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation, and differential reproduction – IOW, a simpler process that that is nevertheless Darwinian. The assumption is smuggled into your mistaken definition of the Darwinian process, which, without justification (either in Darwinism or in semiotic theory), declares several features that characterize modern organisms as essential components of the Darwinian process. They’re not.

You mean, like a genome?

That doesn’t change anything, in light of your statements above. Of course whatever causal account proves to be true must account for all of the essential features of the translation of DNA into proteins. But you have affirmed that nothing in semiotic theory asserts that a particular class or classes of mechanisms cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, which entailments include, “a physiochemically arbitrary relationship.”

Correct. While I articulated an argument that inventoried the material requirements for the transfer of recorded information, I did not assert that any mechanism could or could not be the source of those requirements. It’s called methodological discipline. It’s something I’ve tried to adhere to over the past 30 years as a Research Director.

Your response omits commentary on the fact that your statements flatly, abjectly contradict one another.

Bill, you asked if I asserted ‘what can and cannot produce a semiotic state’ in my argument. You needn’t have even asked; the text of the argument is at the top of this page, and clearly no such assertion appears there. You then took that kernel, and surmised that an argument that only tells us what is necessary for the system to operate (but does not identify its cause) is of no value. And when I called you on that logic, you then rightfully admitted that an accurate description of the system is actually essential to understanding it. You then immediately forgot what you has just agreed to, and have since sought a rhetorical advantage that is a) incomprehensibly stupid, and b) is circumvented by your own prior agreement. It’s a dog of a position Bill. And you’ve already killed your horse. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill:

The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation, and differential reproduction – IOW, a simpler process that that is nevertheless Darwinian.

Now you're contradicting yourself. Mung

UB:

I do not assume that the current system cannot have a precursor, and frankly, the precursor has no bearing on the observation being made. The current system is Darwinian evolution, which is based on the existence of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated into a physical system; the genotype-phenotype distinction (i.e. form recorded in an information-bearing medium, and the subsequent material production of that form). That relationship is absolutely fundamental to the operation of the system, and it requires very specific material conditions. The issue is the origination of those conditions. Hardly excluding a precursor (of some kind) to the establishment of the current system, one would be quite obviously necessary. But that precursor won’t be Darwinian evolution because until the material conditions exist which instantiate that physiochemically-arbitrary relationship, there is no Darwinian evolution.

A lengthier reproduction of your assumed conclusion. The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation, and differential reproduction - IOW, a simpler process that that is nevertheless Darwinian. The assumption is smuggled into your mistaken definition of the Darwinian process, which, without justification (either in Darwinism or in semiotic theory), declares several features that characterize modern organisms as essential components of the Darwinian process. They're not. UB:

Try adding in the bit about having “the capacity to establish a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship”

That doesn't change anything, in light of your statements above. Of course whatever causal account proves to be true must account for all of the essential features of the translation of DNA into proteins. But you have affirmed that nothing in semiotic theory asserts that a particular class or classes of mechanisms cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, which entailments include, "a physiochemically arbitrary relationship." From 1001 above: RB:

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

From 1197: RB:

…You have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

UB:

Except, of course, that it does.

Your response omits commentary on the fact that your statements flatly, abjectly contradict one another. Reciprocating Bill

Now, if your duh strategy has grown as stale for you as it has for everyone else, perhaps you can ask Elizabeth or Bill what they meant by “arbitrary” when they used it.

Or Joe Felsenstein.

This program simulates the evolution of random-mating populations with two alleles, arbitrary fitnesses of the three genotypes, an arbitrary mutation rate, an arbitrary rate of migration between the replicate populations, and finite population size.

http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/popg/

And my second point is that the transfer of biological information is not only the oldest and most prodigious form of irreducible complexity on Earth, but is the very thing required for Darwinian evolution to even exist.

In other words, there's no reason to believe a simple self-replicator that can merely be imagined can serve as a stand-in for what the evidence shows is actually required. Mung

So what is your point?

Ah, I missed that. 'What is my point', you ask? Well, my primary point is that the transfer of recorded information in the genome requires two arrangements of matter; one which evokes an effect within the system by virtue of its arrangement (which is physiochemically-arbitrary to the effect it evokes), as well as a second arrangement which must physically establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its effect (while preserving the arbitrary relationship in the system). So whatever the source of the system, it has to be able to establish this semiotic state. And my second point is that the transfer of biological information is not only the oldest and most prodigious form of irreducible complexity on Earth, but is the very thing required for Darwinian evolution to even exist. Now, if your duh strategy has grown as stale for you as it has for everyone else, perhaps you can ask Elizabeth or Bill what they meant by “arbitrary” when they used it. That would be a nice change of pace. Upright BiPed

onlooker:

No scientist I am aware of has suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process. That would be foolish.

And that's a red herring.

So what is your point?

That you don't have the problems understanding the argument that you claim to have. Mung

onlooker:

This is completely incoherent.

To you maybe. Not to others.

Unless, of course, you are really just the reverse troll you appear to be, interested only in generating responses rather than actually defending your position.

That's rich, coming from you. Mung

Onlooker: No scientist I am aware of has suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process. That would be foolish.

Really?

Dr Elizabeth Liddle: …my position is that IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes. Dr Elizabeth Liddle: I simply do not accept the tenet that replication with modification + natural selection cannot introduce “new information” into the genome. It demonstrably can, IMO, on any definition of information I am aware of. Upright BiPed: Neo-Darwinism doesn’t have a mechanism to bring information into existence in the first place. To speak freely of what it can do with information once it exists, is to ignore the 600lbs assumption in the room. Dr Elizabeth Liddle: Well, tell me what definition of information you are using, and I’ll see if I can demonstrate that it can.

...and contrary to your patently ridiculous "I just can't understand" strategy, she was given an argument that she obviously understood?

Dr Elizabeth Liddle: What makes it information, I think we agreed, is when it is not the objects themselves, but a arrangement of those objects that produces the specific effects. As, for example, when a codon produces an amino acid, not because the nucleotides themselves produce this effect, but because the arrangement of the nucleotides produce this effect.

Gasp! She actually unsderstood "arbitrary"??

Dr Elizabeth Liddle: Like the arbitrary mapping of the symbol “b” to the sound “buh”. Any symbol would do. So the mapping is arbitrary.

You continue to make a fool of yourself, Onlooker. You should have taken Dr Liddle's lead, and ditched the transparent "I just can't understand" treatment. She was less desperate, and apparently a great deal wiser.

Dr Elizabeth Liddle: I claimed that ID claims that information (by any definition ID proponents wish to use) cannot be generated by Darwinian processes, or indeed Chance and Necessity, can be demonstrated to be false. Dr Elizabeth Liddle: I freely conceded that I could not make good on your challenge. My original claim assumed a different definition of information from the one you have asked me to use.

As I told you both here and at TSZ, I simply do not care what you think. On the larger stage, where truth and reason matter, you have no presence whatsoever. You fall below the threshold. Your rhetorical victory is at hand. Upright BiPed

onlooker:

Now that you’ve succeeded at keeping people replying to you for this long, ...

Actually people like you that need attention are responding just to see yourself post and to hopefully grab some attention. UB doesn't care if tards like you respond or not. I am sure he would rather have some educated people respond however he doesn't control that. Joe

onlooker:

No scientist I am aware of has suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process.

So they say it arose by design? Joe

Upright BiPed,

1200 comments and 101 days, with no rebuttal on the merits.

1200 comments and 101 days, with no serious attempt by you to make your word salad any more coherent. I believe this is a good point to repeat keiths' assessment of your behavior:

Every time I summarized your argument, I a) asked you whether my summary was accurate, and b) invited you to amend my summary if it was not. You refused each time, even when others (who also found your prose impenetrable) repeatedly asked you to do so. Why is that? If your argument is as strong as you claim, why do you work so hard to prevent your audience from understanding it? When I have a good idea, I actually want other people to understand it. When they ask questions, I answer them. If I see that they misunderstand me, I clarify things. Why wouldn’t I? Why would I try to hide my good idea? You, on the other hand, seem ashamed of your argument and afraid of what might happen if you stated it clearly and explicitly. Instead of clarifying, you obfuscate. Instead of answering questions straightforwardly, you evade them. You complain that others are misrepresenting your position, but when they ask you for correction, you refuse to give it. Then you declare victory, saying that no one has defeated your argument! For you, the entire exercise seems to be more about saving face than it is about communicating your ideas. In fact, you appear to be deliberately avoiding communication precisely in order to save face. Why should anyone take your argument seriously if you are so ashamed of it? Why are you afraid to communicate it in a way that your audience will actually understand?

Now that you've succeeded at keeping people replying to you for this long, I hope your need for attention is somewhat sated and you can start acting like someone who has enough confidence in his position to show some intellectual integrity by answering direct questions. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function.

Darwinian evolution requires heritable variation of traits related reproductive success. Whether you want to warp your ambiguous at best definitions to apply the term "recorded information" to that doesn't change the what is actually happening.

The presence of recorded information requires very specific material conditions in order to exist.

Here you take one more step away from what is actually happening, focusing more on your "recorded information" model than on reality. Darwinian evolution requires heritable variation of traits related to reproductive success. It does not require all of the complexities we observe in modern organisms.

Darwinian evolution cannot be the cause of those specific material conditions.

No scientist I am aware of has suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process. That would be foolish. So what is your point? Like your "semiotic argument", this doesn't seem to support ID unless you're repeating the common creationist argument from incredulity. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Your entire involvement here has been an attempt to massage over the unambiguous definitions given in the argument, in the hopes that you can make them malleable for a counter-argument.

No, my entire involvement here has been an attempt to get you to convert your word salad into a coherent argument. Essential to the achievement of that goal is to get agreement on clear definitions of your terms as you use them in your argument. The record shows that you have been actively resistent to such clarification. Some of your opponents have suggested that this demonstrates your lack of understanding of the scientific method in particular and rational debate in general. I disagree. I believe you know exactly how important clear definitions are to being able to discuss an argument, which is why you refuse to provide them. Your fear of being disproven is greater than your commitment to intellectual honesty. I invite you, yet again, to prove me wrong.

#4 is a coherent statement and doesn’t need "detangling".

Your paragraph 4:

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

This is completely incoherent. You are using terms differently from how you had previously agreed they were defined. I ask yet again: What exactly are you trying to say in that paragraph? Please define your terms clearly and concisely and separate your premises into single, also concise, points. Unless, of course, you are really just the reverse troll you appear to be, interested only in generating responses rather than actually defending your position. onlooker

RB's "logic" The theory of evolution does NOT assert that a certain class or classes of mechanisms is required to create the biological diversification observed, therefor Intelligent Design is perfectly acceptable under evolutionism's framework. Joe

Hi Alan, And we are still wondering why evolutionists do not provide testable hypotheses along with supporting evidence for evolutionism. You do realize that if you ever do such a thing that ID will fade away amd the semiotic argument will be moot. So what is it, exactly, that is preventing you and your ilk from doing such a thing? Joe

My apologies to UD if the length of this thread has become a bandwith hog

Still wondering why someone, (Axe, Gauger,Abel, Dembski, Marks) doesn't pick up your ball and run with it? If the few you have managed to get to look at your "thesis" aren't impressed out of sheer obtuseness, why not publicise it more widely? Why not a new thread, in the mean time? Alan Fox

...noticing the laughing man at the front of the courtroom, one juror quietly says to the other "but wouldn't it still be required to actually do what has to be done" and the other says "yeah, regardless". Upright BiPed

From 1001 above: RBl:

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

From 1197: RB:

…You have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state

UB:

Except, of course, that it does.

LOL! Reciprocating Bill

And keiths is still on his evidence-free rant... Joe

toronto:

UBP’s semiotic theory is about as airtight as a balloon knitted out of wool.

Then it is very telling that you can't refute it, ie find any leaks.

I cannot understand why, after everything that was pointed out to him, he still believes he has won the day.

Well that is due to the fact that everything you have pointed out has been either a strawman, false or just plain stupid. Joe

1200 comments and 101 days, with no rebuttal on the merits.

pathetic Mung

1200 comments and 101 days, with no rebuttal on the merits. (My apologies to UD if the length of this thread has become a bandwith hog). Upright BiPed

Mung,

Thank you for your presence and contribution here at UD.

Thank you Mung, that was nice to hear. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill at 1194,

UB: Let’s put it on the table and discuss it. If it exists, then let’s assess its plausibility. RB: My reply to this deserves it’s own comment, which I will supply somewhat later. Later… RB: Plausibility is a slippery notion, as it is highly unlikely that what you find plausible and what I find plausible are the same.

“I’m not saying, cuz you won’t believe me” is the response that needs its own special attention? Your reponse is entirely useless in an empirical discussion, is it not? It may be difficult to imagine a more anemic rejoinder. No worries though. Making an assertion, then being completely incapable of following it up, has become a rather endearing trademark where you are concerned. :)

May 2012, RB: The question is, “can a process other than the necessarily semiotic transfer of recorded information result in an arrangement of matter to represent an effect within a system, as well as an arrangement of matter to establish the relationship between the representation and the effect within that system? We say yes. You don’t believe it (so what?).

The bottom line is that you need a mechanism. You don’t have one. Hiding this fact behind the threat that your mechanism might be judged as to whether or not it accomplishes the result is hardly convincing. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill at 1191,

You repeat this often. Yet a finer specimen of a circular argument generating an assumed conclusion you will never find.

Ah, assertions of circularity; the favorite bastard tool of the lost cause. There is nothing circular about noting that the transfer of recorded information requires specific material conditions, and there is nothing circular about noting that Darwinian process cannot be the source of those material conditions if it itself requires them in order to exist.

The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication and variation.

I do not assume that the current system cannot have a precursor, and frankly, the precursor has no bearing on the observation being made. The current system is Darwinian evolution, which is based on the existence of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated into a physical system; the genotype-phenotype distinction (i.e. form recorded in an information-bearing medium, and the subsequent material production of that form). That relationship is absolutely fundamental to the operation of the system, and it requires very specific material conditions. The issue is the origination of those conditions. Hardly excluding a precursor (of some kind) to the establishment of the current system, one would be quite obviously necessary. But that precursor won’t be Darwinian evolution because until the material conditions exist which instantiate that physiochemically-arbitrary relationship, there is no Darwinian evolution.

I see no basis in semiotic theory for that claim…

Then you haven’t addressed the material reality of the system, or you (as is historically the case) simply take the system for granted and proclaim that a “simpler” system can transform from physical determinism to arbitrary relationship and don’t indulge yourself with worrying about the details.

…and there is certainly nothing in Darwinism that asserts it. Your repetition of this canard certainly establishes nothing, due to its circularity.

And you don’t seem to have a case for circularity. First you claim circularity, but in place of making your case, you switch to asserting that an unsupported assumption has been made. But no such assumption has been made; it was a statement of material fact which you cannot refute with contrary evidence or reasoning. If you’d like to propose a mechanism whereby a physically determined system transforms to a non-physical relationship, then get after it.

Very amusing. A similar non-response was addressed by Lizzie at the time … But now we know that she was right, because you have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Bill, I think you are out of your element. This is not a courtroom drama where you wrap up the observations of evidence into a strategic positioning statement in order to influence the personalities of certain members in the jury. If I had assumed any conclusions in my argument, then the artifacts of that assumption would be there and you would properly attack them. But they aren’t there. So in response, you’ve latched on to the opposite, and claim that my argument doesn’t exclude any possibilities. You conveniently exclude from your positioner that the originating mechanism will require the capacity to establish a semiotic state – a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system. Every time you repeat your claim, you effectively say “to hell with the material evidence”. This is truly a weak position for an avid materialist such as yourself. Try adding in the bit about having “the capacity to establish a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship” to your positioning statement, and let us see if it maintains the same visceral punch you assign to it now. Does the semiotic argument establish any discriminating criteria for the origin of the system? How about the fact that it has to establish a set of relationships which are not based on the material involved? Materialist cannot legitimately narrow their eyes and mumble something about evolution, only to take it all for granted. The material product of the system is not produced from the material constraint of the system; proteins are not made from nucleotides, and the systematic relationship that connects them has discernible and coherent material requirements that didn’t exist until they appear in the record as the basis of living systems. You’ll need an arrangement of matter that evokes a specific effect within a system, where the arrangement is physiochemically-arbitrary to that effect, and you’ll need an arrangement of matter that establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its effect. And this arbitrary component of the system must be preserved, because without that, there will not be any genotype, and there would be no way to translate it. These critical requirements didn’t just poof into existence, Bill, no matter how many jurors you wish to distract.

But now we know that she [EL] was right, because you have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state

Except, of course, that it does.

Lizzie’s assertion that semiotic theory does not exemplify an argument from ID that successfully excludes the possibility of Darwinian origins of such systems was correct.

She disagrees with you, and she is correct on the matter.

Elizabeth Liddle (Jan 2012): You know, Upright BiPed, you are absolutely right! Darwinian evolution doesn’t explain how replication with heritable variation in reproductive success first came into being!

Upright BiPed

And aren’t you ashamed that a couple of toads are more scientifically literate than you?

Budweiser toads? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser_Frogs Mung

Reciprocating Bill- If you aren't even going to try to support your position then why even bother criticizing ID seeing that the way to the design inference is directly through your position, meaning the way to proper way to criticize it is actually by supporting your position? And aren't you ashamed that a couple of toads are more scientifically literate than you? Joe

UB:

Let’s put it on the table and discuss it. If it exists, then let’s assess its plausibility.

Plausibility is a slippery notion, as it is highly unlikely that what you find plausible and what I find plausible are the same. How then to assess plausibility? If your definition of "plausible" is "That which UB and the Budweiser toads (Joe and Mung) find it plausible," I'll pass. Reciprocating Bill

Alan Fox:

Critics of semiotic theory (those few that are even aware of upright biped’s oeuvre) are not putting much effort into criticism because, I suspect, they have a hard time taking it seriously.

LoL! The critics have been proven to be immature jerks who are upset because their position has nothing but their cowardice for support. So no one takes tjem seriously. Joe

RB:

I see no basis in semiotic theory for that claim, and there is certainly nothing in Darwinism that asserts it.

Darwinism is an untestable fantasy. The semiotic theory is evidence for Intelligent Design because of our knowledge of cause and effect relationships, ie sceince. That is what has you confused because you don't know anything about science. And your screaming "contradiction" doesn't make it so. Joe

UB:

Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function. The presence of recorded information requires very specific material conditions in order to exist. Darwinian evolution cannot be the cause of those specific material conditions. To say that it can, is to say that a thing that does not yet exist can cause something to happen.

You repeat this often. Yet a finer specimen of a circular argument generating an assumed conclusion you will never find. The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication and variation. I see no basis in semiotic theory for that claim, and there is certainly nothing in Darwinism that asserts it. Your repetition of this canard certainly establishes nothing, due to its circularity. UB:

There is absolutely no reason for you to suggest that this comment is false. It was made in a conversation with Dr Liddle and reflects the dialogue of that conversation. You may wish to disagree with the reasoning, but be that as it may, you cannot say that the reasoning was not provided and argued for.

Very amusing. A similar non-response was addressed by Lizzie at the time:

Ah. If by “made their case” you mean “put a case forward”, then I readily retract my claim. Of course I agree that a case has been made, and should have worded that in a more bulletproof manner. I meant it in the sense of “I do not believe you have made your case” rather than “You have not attempted to make a case”. Of course the case has been “made” in the sense that it has been put forward. I do not believe it holds water.

UB:

That is insulting to the evidence, Dr Liddle – to me, to the recording of this conversation, and to those who might have followed along.

But now we know that she was right, because you have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state (UB: "Correct"), or that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state (UB: "Ditto.") Lizzie's assertion that semiotic theory does not exemplify an argument from ID that successfully excludes the possibility of Darwinian origins of such systems was correct. UB:

As I have already stated, this comment was validated by the fact that she was unable to provide even a conceptual mechanism (and eventually withdrew her claim).

Another non-sequitur. "The observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process" is flatly contradicted by your affirmation that "It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state." That contradiction is independent of any given individual's ability to suggest such a mechanism. One of those statements must be false. Take your pick UB:

Let’s put it on the table and discuss it. If it exists, then let’s assess its plausibility.

My reply to this deserves it's own comment, which I will supply somewhat later. Reciprocating Bill

Whatever else may be said of the criticisms, they are shallow.

Critics of semiotic theory (those few that are even aware of upright biped's oeuvre) are not putting much effort into criticism because, I suspect, they have a hard time taking it seriously. If you want to get the attention of the scientific community, make some effort at communication. Publish a paper. Send it to scientists. Put some clothes on the emperor. Otherwise, waste no more time in self-delusion and move on. Alan Fox

Upright BiPed, Here's what kills me about these so-called critics. Not a single one of them stops to consider just what is required to instantiate information in a material substrate and why those requirements are as they are. Whatever else may be said of the criticisms, they are shallow. Thank you for your presence and contribution here at UD. Mung

Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided processes cannot give rise to such systems.

It does not follow from evolutionary theory that unguided processes can give rise to any system, period. Therefore, evolutionary theory is useless. Mung

RB:

Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided processes cannot give rise to such systems.

There just isn't any POSITIVE evidence for it and no reason to think unguided processes could give rise to such systems. Might as well claim erosion carved the Sphynx. However guys RB is correct, Upright Biped's semiotic theory is totally useless to evolutionists, who blatantly ignore its implications and disgrace science with their very existence. Joe

RB, re: "The [following] are false statements..."

UB: IDists have succeeded in demonstrating that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes.

Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function. The presence of recorded information requires very specific material conditions in order to exist. Darwinian evolution cannot be the cause of those specific material conditions. To say that it can, is to say that a thing that does not yet exist can cause something to happen.

UB: You have also been given the reasoning as to why ID proponents claim that these observations are artifacts of design and cannot be assigned to purely material processes.

There is absolutely no reason for you to suggest that this comment is false. It was made in a conversation with Dr Liddle and reflects the dialogue of that conversation. You may wish to disagree with the reasoning, but be that as it may, you cannot say that the reasoning was not provided and argued for. And by the way, if you waiting to be satisfied only by a mathematical proof of an event that happened 4 billion years ago somewhere on the surface of this planet, then you have no business discussing scientific issues, particularly these.

UB: the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process.

This is also a comment made directly to Dr Liddle. As I have already stated, this comment was validated by the fact that she was unable to provide even a conceptual mechanism (and eventually withdrew her claim). Also, as I have stated, I am happy to open the claim up to you as well. Do you have a conceptual mechanism for the transition from a purely deterministic system to one based on physiochemically-arbitrary relationships? Let’s put it on the table and discuss it. If it exists, then let’s assess its plausibility (obviously we are not interested in mere bafflegab). If not, then you can join those who also cannot provide even a conceptual unguided process. Upright BiPed

Hi Bill, When can we expect your long-awaited much-ballyhooed refutation? Should we expect that it will likewise be empty of actual content? Mung

More empty metacomments. UB:

the question quickly arises as to just how willing you are to take pitiful and/or otherwise ridiculous positions in order to accomplish your goals.

The position I take above is that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. UB: "Correct." Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that only design, agency, intelligence etc. can give rise to such systems. I also take the position that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. UB: "Ditto." Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided processes cannot give rise to such systems. And I take the position that statements such as the the following, which capture your aspirations for semiotic theory, are therefore false:

You have also been given the reasoning as to why ID proponents claim that these observations are artifcts of design and cannot be assigned to purely material processes

IDists [from context: semiotic theory an an instance of ID] have suceeded in demonstrating that what they consider the signature of intentional design [from context: semiosis] is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes.

the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process.

The above are false statements, because they assert that semiotic theory bars unguided processes as possible causes for the phenomena in question, when it patently does not - as you repeatedly affirm above. With that, semiotic theory is shown to be a "bridge to nowhere," useless with regard to the key questions that motivate this debate. It does not follow that the span is in fact sound - but it does follow that a debate vis that soundness is a pointless waste of time, because soundness in a bridge to nowhere still gets you nowhere. Perhaps semoitic theory yet has something to contribute to research into the large questions you mention - has empirical entailments above and beyond that which is entailed by our current physiochemical understanding of the translation of DNA into proteins - but you either can't or won't state what those might be. So it remains useless at the margins as well. Reciprocating Bill

(Oct 8) Onlooker, Your entire involvement here has been an attempt to massage over the unambiguous definitions given in the argument, in the hopes that you can make them malleable for a counter-argument. This has already been discussed here and here among other places. Unfortunately for you, your strategy has been transparent for the entire duration of your stay. You are now left with nothing but to return here and use the repetition of your attempts as an opportunity to sling more insults. It’s all you have left. As I have already pointed out, it’s a terrible way to have to protect your worldview.

#4 is a coherent statement and doesn’t need "detangling". Once again, you make derogatory assertions, but refuse to articulate any problem. Upright BiPed

onlooker:

We can model transcription and translation as a code, but in fact what is actually happening is just biochemistry.

Yeah Eric. And we can model codes as codes, but that don't make em codes. And the genetic code can have all the features of a code, but that don't make it a code either. A person who denies that the genetic code is an actual code is not worth wasting any of your time on. Mung

onlooker:

Just when I think we’re making progress and that you are finally willing to answer questions about your argument, you respond with your 1159 and dent my optimism.

An optimistic troll. How sweet. Spend another 1200 posts trying to define 'arbitrary' in a way that's not arbitrary.

D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter that constitutes information.

lol Here, try this: D1'. Representation: An arrangement of matter that represents information representing matter. Mung

Upright BiPed:

One can presume that if my argument had concluded an arbitrary relationship was indeed unnecessary and undemonstrated by the system, you would not be so eager to position that result as meaningless.

That would be safe bet. Mung

onlooker:

If you have a moment, please consider these two statements: S1. The fact that the processes of transcription and translation that result in protein synthesis involve a multistep chemical pathway justifies a conclusion of ID. S2. The ability of humans to model part of the protein synthesis process as an encoding of information justifies a conclusion of ID. Do either of these correspond to your understanding of Upright BiPed’s argument?

Nope, keep fishing... Joe

onlooker:

We can model transcription and translation as a code, but in fact what is actually happening is just biochemistry.

How can it be just biochemistry when there isn't any biochemistry involved in selecting what codon represents which amino acid? So either onlooker is a liar or incredibly ignorant. Joe

Eric Anderson, Welcome to the conversation!

Does your "semiotic argument" boil down to the idea that the genetic code we see is one of a number of potential such codes, therefore ID?

Almost, but not quite right. I'd say the fact that the genetic code is a code is indicative of design. It's not the fact that it is one among a number of potential codes (each of which would indicated design), but the fact that it is a code at all.

You are mistaking the map for the territory. We can model transcription and translation as a code, but in fact what is actually happening is just biochemistry. If you have a moment, please consider these two statements: S1. The fact that the processes of transcription and translation that result in protein synthesis involve a multistep chemical pathway justifies a conclusion of ID. S2. The ability of humans to model part of the protein synthesis process as an encoding of information justifies a conclusion of ID. Do either of these correspond to your understanding of Upright BiPed's argument? onlooker

Upright BiPed, Just when I think we're making progress and that you are finally willing to answer questions about your argument, you respond with your 1159 and dent my optimism. You agreed with these definitions: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences and you accepted my definition of "information" D2: D2. Information: The form of a thing. But then when we got to your paragraph 4:

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

It became clear that those definitions do not help untangle whatever meaning you have hidden so deeply in that incoherent tangle of words. So, I ask again, what exactly are you trying to say in that paragraph? Should I change D1 to: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter that constitutes information. onlooker

RB:

And I am also stating that utterances such as “the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process” (and several others to the same effect reproduced above) are perforce false.

LoL! It's "false" just cuz RB sez so! Yup all science so far, RB! Joe

Bill, your horse is dead. It's time to get off. Throwing our wits at each other has grown unproductive and boring. For all your compositional skills, you simply cannot demonstrate that the premises of my argument are false, nor can you demonstrate that the conclusions do not logically follow from those premises. All you can do now is position your failure as something that it's not; namely a technical victory. You are on the wrong side of the material evidence, and your resources have played out. My ability to keep highlighting this fact is superior to your ability to defend an unsupported position. This is not arrogance on my part, its simply a function of the evidence. You are quite obviously an intelligent person; if you had someting more than "gee golly gus" then you would have already played it. If you do not stop this, then I will. I have no interest in endlessly carrying on this kind of an exchange. Upright BiPed

RB,

You may change “most charitable possible reading” to “most favorable possible reading” and the meaning of my post remains unchanged.

The argument is unambiguous to a competent reader anyway, and in your case, it is more of a test of ideological integrity rather than reading comprehension. In any case, it means that in order to transfer recorded information, an irreducibly complex core of two arrangements of matter is required, with each of these material objects having (as a matter of universal observation and logical necessity) a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up (i.e. they instantiate a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship into a physical system which is necessary for that physical system to function).

The problem that is evident in the above vis causation is not an assumed conclusion, but the absence of any conclusion at all with respect to the causal questions that animate this debate.

When you’ve lost an argument and are either unwilling to admit it, or are merely treading water in order to save face, the question quickly arises as to just how willing you are to take pitiful and/or otherwise ridiculous positions in order to accomplish your goals. What “animates this debate” is understanding the history of life and mankind. Has it not occurred to you that in order to address such a stupendous question as “how did this all happen” we might need to understand what is materially necessary for it to come about? Shall we kid ourselves that you are somehow unaware that this is exactly how (just about) every significant advancement in human knowledge has ever come to pass? Of course, the position you’ve taken clearly underscores why your anxiety begins to glow in the dark. Gone are the promises of a chest-pounding refutation of my argument. You are now merely happy to point out that the biggest question in the history of the human race remains unanswered, and you are all too happy to use that triviality as a means to ignore what has been demonstrated to you to be fundamentally necessary for it to happen. One can presume that if my argument had concluded an arbitrary relationship was indeed unnecessary and undemonstrated by the system, you would not be so eager to position that reesult as meaningless. Feel free to deny this (then ask me again what value these observations provide which is not equaled by merely ignoring them).

It follows from YOUR position, and hence YOUR prior metaphysical assumptions, that semiotic theory neither requires intelligent origin nor bars origins by unguided means. You’ve affirmed that several times above. This will remain true regardless of my metaphysical assumptions, as it flows from yours.

Quite frankly, I think you'll have a heck of a time convincing anyone that your demonstrated desire to exclude all observations made by my argument stems from my desire to demonstrate those same observations. And enthusiastically highlighting the fact that my metaphysical assumptions produced a coherent argument which presumes neither an agent nor a material origin of life is something that I take as a methodological compliment.

UB: Will excluding the observations negate the material requirements? RB: Regardless of the fate of the “material requirements,” it will remain the case that semiotic theory neither requires intelligent origins, nor bars unguided origins.

Your response did not answer the question, so your ongoing refusal to address the real world conseqences of your denial remains fully intact. Obviously, your denial of material evidence does nothing whatsoever to change that material evidence. Your position falls significantly short of methodological naturalism, or materialism, or any enlightenment which might be presumed to stem from the two. Of course, this fact will have no impact on the trajectory of your comments, which only goes to underscore the conclusion that your are an true ideologue who has wilfully insulated himself from any inconvenient material evidence.

No. I am stating that given the most favorable possible reading of semiotic theory – YOURS – it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, and therefore a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. It therefore follows that semiotic theory per se does not exclude unguided origins of such systems.

Again, thank you for noticing that I produced an argument which cannot be said to be metaphysically biased, while at the same time forming a coherent explanation which you cannot refute. The fact that this observation (on your part) represents the centerpiece of your rebuttal, is an unexpected (but thoroughly welcomed) surprise.

And I am also stating that utterances such as “the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process” (and several others to the same effect reproduced above) are perforce false.

I am interested to know what the “other” comments I've made which you say are necessarily false (and would like to know why you see them as 'necessarily' so). As for the comment you quoted; that comment was made specifically to Dr Elizabeth Liddle when she claimed to be able to demonstate the rise of recorded information transfer within a simulation of Darwinian processes. My comment was validated when she unambiguously recanted her claim. Perhaps you can do better. Do you have a conceptual mechanism for the transition from purely (deterministic) chemophysical interactions to a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship driving the unambiguous function demonstated by living organisms? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill:

I am systematically stating that given the most favorable possible reading of semiotic theory – YOURS – ...

Bill's intimate knowledge of semiotic theory is astounding. Mung

onlooker:

D3. Arbitrary: Without direct physical connection between two artifacts.

FAIL! Arbitrary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allosteric_regulation Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

I am systematically stating that given the most favorable possible reading of semiotic theory... Well, a systematic statement eh? I guess that settles it. When can we expect your refutation?

Mung

UB:

I love the self-serving inflection you place on offering a “charitable reading” of my argument.

You may change "most charitable possible reading" to "most favorable possible reading" and the meaning of my post remains unchanged. To wit: I am systematically stating that given the most favorable possible reading of semiotic theory – YOURS – it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, and therefore a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. We know that because you’ve told us so. I’m also stating that one needn’t accept that most favorable reading to see what conclusions inescapably flow from it.

I did not assume any conclusions in formulating my argument.

The problem that is evident in the above vis causation is not an assumed conclusion, but the absence of any conclusion at all with respect to the causal questions that animate this debate. Semiotic theory neither requires intelligent origin, nor bars unguided mechanisms. You said so.

Following your prior metaphysical assumptions, your position is to summarily exclude these universal observations from any consideration whatsoever – regardless of what class of mechanism could or could not create them. You wanted them out from the very start.

It follows from YOUR position, and hence YOUR prior metaphysical assumptions, that semiotic theory neither requires intelligent origin nor bars origins by unguided means. You've affirmed that several times above. This will remain true regardless of my metaphysical assumptions, as it flows from yours.

Will excluding the observations negate the material requirements?

Regardless of the fate of the "material requirements," it will remain the case that semiotic theory neither requires intelligent origins, nor bars unguided origins.

In real world terms, are you not suggesting that one needn’t accept material observations if they conflict with one’s metaphysics (i.e. in the way that this argument conflicts with your metaphysics)?

No. I am stating that given the most favorable possible reading of semiotic theory – YOURS – it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, and therefore a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. It therefore follows that semiotic theory per se does not exclude unguided origins of such systems. And I am also stating that utterances such as "the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process" (and several others to the same effect reproduced above) are perforce false. (Even if subject and verb agree to disagree.) Reciprocating Bill

RB at 1165, I love the self-serving inflection you place on offering a “charitable reading" of my argument. It must comfort your intellect to think of the higher platitudes in one’s character, when in fact your promised refutation (now removed of all its initial bravado) has been reduced to the rather anemic satisfaction of simply pointing out that I didn’t assume any conclusions in my argument. (RB in May: “Your argument works only if you assume your conclusion.”) We've apparently come a long way (as it were) yet if your counter-argument slows any further, I’m afraid it may vapor lock and stall out altogether. Let’s look at what you’ve written now:

I am systematically stating that given the most charitable possible reading of semiotic theory – YOURS – it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, and therefore a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. We know that because you’ve told us so.

As I have already stated numerous times, I did not assume any conclusions in formulating my argument. To do so would not only demonstrate improper methodology, but it is a logical flaw which I had no intention of making. Again, I find it amazing that you see this as a point in your favor. But let us not forget what your real position has been. Following your prior metaphysical assumptions, your position is to summarily exclude these universal observations from any consideration whatsoever - regardless of what class of mechanism could or could not create them. You wanted them out from the very start. It’s as if you know full well that they present a virtually intractable obstacle to a material origin, and it quite obviously serves you better to be done with them from the outset as to be forced to incorporate them as the valid material requirements of the system. And in that particular vein, I asked you a very pertinent question which you have repeatedly refused to answer:

UB: And finally, the unanswered question: Will excluding the observations negate the material requirements?

What is your answer to this question? The only valid answer is “no”. A mechanism that has no empirical support whatsoever will still have no empirical support whatsoever. Such a mechanism provides no scientific grounds to believe it to be true, and that status will remain unchanged even if one ignores the material reality.

I’m also stating that one needn’t accept that charitable reading to see what conclusions inescapably flow from it.

In real world terms, are you not suggesting that one needn’t accept material observations if they conflict with one’s metaphysics (i.e. in the way that this argument conflicts with your metaphysics)? In other words, is it your position that proper scientific discipline is maintained while minimizing coherent observations as a “charitable reading” in order to exclude them from consideration? You have thus demonstrated that your personal metaphysics trump material evidence; they trump universal observation and logical necessity as well. I suppose I should thank you for your candor on the matter. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill- or is it just Repeating Bill:

I am systematically stating that given the most charitable possible reading of semiotic theory – YOURS – it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, and therefore a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship.

Science deals with POSITIVEs, RB. We know what mechanisms can produce semiotic states/ physiochemically-arbitrary relationships. And we have told you what those include. OTOH you cannot produce any evidence for any other class of mechanism capable of producing semiotic states/ physiochemically-arbitrary relationships. People have noticed. Also science does not deal with absolutes, ie proof. And that leaves the door open for some future researcher to come along and make a name for herself by overturning a long-standing scientific fact. Geez RB, it's as if you are scientifically illiterate and dang proud of it. Joe

Mung:

Those are your definitions? From the OP: 1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system... So, it looks to me like you just lifted them from the OP and that UPB accepted his own definitions.

As I stated in 1034, above: "I don’t find observations at the top of the page. I do find a definition: 'A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system.'" Reciprocating Bill

UB:

Are you haphazardly suggesting that you now accept the universal observation that a set of physiochemically-arbitrary relationships are a fundamental requirement in the origin of Life on Earth, and given that such systems only stem from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. agents), agent origin is a viable explanation based on universal observation?

Why, I'm glad you asked. I am systematically stating that given the most charitable possible reading of semiotic theory - YOURS - it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, and therefore a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. We know that because you've told us so. I'm also stating that one needn’t accept that charitable reading to see what conclusions inescapably flow from it. Reciprocating Bill

I was being sarcastic :) I can't say onlooker's comment deserved even sarcasm, but I couldn't resist. Mung

Thank you Eric. I would also add that the conclusion of the argument given at the top of this page clearly appears at the end of the argument given at the top of this page. Nowehere in that conclusion does the word "therefore" or the phrase "therefore ID" appear in that conclusion. Such additions are tacked on solely for petty rhetorical benefit, with the intention of minimizing the content of the argument - having been unable to refute the argument on its actual merits. Upright BiPed

Mung @1161 (quoting onlooker):

Does your “semiotic argument” boil down to the idea that the genetic code we see is one of a number of potential such codes, therefore ID?

Almost, but not quite right. I'd say the fact that the genetic code is a code is indicative of design. It's not the fact that it is one among a number of potential codes (each of which would indicated design), but the fact that it is a code at all. In other words, it is not the existence of this particular code selected from a number of potential codes that gives the design inference, but the existence of a code selected from an essentially infinite number of nonsense arrangements. Eric Anderson

onlooker:

Does your “semiotic argument” boil down to the idea that the genetic code we see is one of a number of potential such codes, therefore ID?

See, that's wasn't so hard now, was it. 1156 posts and you finally get it. Mung

onlooker:

Previously you accepted my definition of “representation” D1: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. and you accepted my definition of “information” D2: D2. Information: The form of a thing.

Those are your definitions? From the OP: 1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. 2. ... information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) So, it looks to me like you just lifted them from the OP and that UPB accepted his own definitions. Any why wouldn't he? All this time and effort just to get him to accede to his own definitions? Are you kidding? And all this while you've been claiming his terms are not defined and his argument is incoherent. Yes, we can see the troll. The troll is back.

D3. Arbitrary: Without direct physical connection between two artifacts.

FAIL!

I utterly fail to see any difference between the two sentences.

Yes, you fail. Mung

from Oct 8th

Onlooker, Your entire involvement here has been an attempt to massage over the unambiguous definitions given in the argument, in the hopes that you can make them malleable for a counter-argument. This has already been discussed here and here among other places. Unfortunately for you, your strategy has been transparent for the entire duration of your stay. You are now left with nothing but to return here and use the repetition of your attempts as an opportunity to sling more insults. It’s all you have left. As I have already pointed out, it’s a terrible way to have to protect your worldview. - – - – - – - – - – - – - Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. Protocol: An arrangement of matter that physical established the otherwise non-existent relationship between a representation and its effect. Materially arbitrary: The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system). Evoke: The representation can evoke an effect within a system, but because it is materially arbitrary to that effect, it cannot determine what that effect will be – the effect is physically determined by the protocol alone. - – - – - – - – - – - – - These two arrangements of matter are ubiquitous in any transfer of recorded information, and they must operate as described in order to accomplish what must be accomplished – the transfer of form via a material medium. These objects are both a logical necessity and a universal empirical observation. You cannot refute them, and your unending attempts to redefine them (with added ambiguity) have grown stale, even on your own side of the fence.

Upright BiPed

onlooker,

I utterly fail to see any difference between the two sentences. I am happy that you finally have directly addressed my request that you define one of the essential terms in your argument.

Great! Now we can dispense with the transparently self-serving idea that you need to rewrite my clarification of “materially arbitrary” (given 96 days ago) so that you can understand it. So will you be giving your long awaited rebuttal now? No? How surprising. Upright BiPed

onlooker:

Nothing we have observed in transcription and translation involves anything other than pretty well understood chemistry and physics.

LoL! By that "logic" nothing we have observed with computer operations involves anything other than pretty well understood physics and quantum mechanics. No need for a designer then. Joe

Upright BiPed, In response to your 1107:

You may certainly wish to think that pure chemistry results in coding and translation, but you would be ignoring specific material facts. First off, there is no physical law that determines the sequence structure of the nucleic triplet. The triplet is an entirely rate-independent causal structure within the system. Secondly, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by the forces of pair binding (which were in operation at the beginning of the process). Instead, the specificity of the amino acid is determined in spatial and temporal isolation by the physical structure of the aminoacyl synthetase. This establishes the necessary arbitrariness which is required in order to code and transfer information. It also means that you must get from the triplet to the appearance of a specified amino acid without a direct physical connection between the two. You cannot get there by physical law alone. It requires the arbitrary coordination of the system in order to function.

So? Does your "semiotic argument" boil down to the idea that the genetic code we see is one of a number of potential such codes, therefore ID? Nothing we have observed in transcription and translation involves anything other than pretty well understood chemistry and physics. Where exactly do you see a need for your designer? onlooker

Upright BiPed, I finally have some free time after catching up from the holiday travel and work that piled up. I apologize for the delay in replying, but the real world must take precedence. From your 1069:

this means that the protein that ultimately is synthesized after transcription produces mRNA is arbitrary with respect to the original DNA since there is no direct physical connection between the two.

It’s wonderful that you have so clearly articulated the essential characteristic you’ve been asking for. The relationship between the representation and the effect it produces within the system is "materially arbitrary". D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. "no direct physical connection between the two".

I utterly fail to see any difference between the two sentences. I am happy that you finally have directly addressed my request that you define one of the essential terms in your argument. Imagine the progress we could have made had you done so the first time I asked.

Will you be posting your long-awaited rebuttal now?

We've made some minimal, slow progress, but your "argument" is still so much word salad and as such it requires no rebuttal. Let's see where we are now, though. We now have three definitions and a premise: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences D2. Information: The form of a thing. D3. Arbitrary: Without direct physical connection between two artifacts. P1. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. This gets us as far as paragraph 2 of your original post. Let's look at paragraph 3:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

I previously attempted to clarify this as another premise: P2. An arrangement of matter that constitutes information, as the word is used in this argument, is not connected by any direct physical mechanism to the thing to which it refers. To better reflect your preferred word choice, I'll rephrase this slightly as: P2. An arrangement of matter that constitutes information, as the word is used in this argument, has no direct physical connection to that to which it refers. There is also another premise from your parenthetical remark: P3. An arrangement of matter that constitutes information, as the word is used in this argument, cannot be the same as that to which it refers. I suspect that these two premises are actually definitions, but we can work out those details after we've got more clarity on your meaning. Onward to paragraph 4!

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

This is really confusing. You seem to be equating "an arrangement of matter that constitutes information" with the word "representation". Previously you accepted my definition of "representation" D1: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences and you accepted my definition of "information" D2: D2. Information: The form of a thing. Those don't help untangle the meaning of your paragraph 4. What exactly are you trying to say in that paragraph? Should I change D1 to: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter that constitutes information. onlooker

RB,

UB: Since you do not incorporate the observations within the argument into (at minimum) an open question, but instead insist that the material observations be excluded altogether RB: Quite the contrary...

Are you haphazardly suggesting that you now accept the universal observation that a set of physiochemically-arbitrary relationships are a fundamental requirement in the origin of Life on Earth, and given that such systems only stem from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. agents), agent origin is a viable explanation based on universal observation? Have you now adopted a neutral metaphysic, and therefore rescinded your earlier call to exclude all such material evidence from consideration? Or is "quite the contrary" just a gratuitous non-sequitur? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill:

Quite the contrary. Incorporating the most charitable possible reading of your argument – namely YOURS – it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Willful ignorance is not a good position to argue from RB. So why do you continually do so? In any case, all examples of semiotic systems stem from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. agents), and there are no examples whatsoever of semiotic systems stemming from anything else.- Upright Biped Joe

Well Bill, you've had almost as much to offer as onlooker (practically nothing) and in far fewer posts. Congratulations. Less with less. Commendable. Mung

UB:

Having to concede the reality of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship as the driving force behind Life on Earth isn’t exactly the resounding rebuttal you had in mind, is it Bill?

A non-sequitur. Actual sequitur: Even given the most charitable possible reading of semiotic theory - YOURS - it does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. We know that because you told us so: RB:

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

Perforce, even under that most charitable possible reading it does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship (because a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship is one of the so called "entailments.") This compels the further conclusion that it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided events (one such class) cannot have created a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. One needn't accept that charitable reading to see what conclusions inescapably flow from it if you do. But you do (it's your reading), which means you are stuck with those conclusions.

So the question is; does it follow that semiosis actually rises from unorganized matter?

Follow from what?

Since you do not incorporate the observations within the argument into (at minimum) an open question, but instead insist that the material observations be excluded altogether

Quite the contrary. Incorporating the most charitable possible reading of your argument - namely YOURS - it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. We know that because you told us so. Reciprocating Bill

RB: Does it follow from the presence of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the system?

Having to concede the reality of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship as the driving force behind Life on Earth isn’t exactly the resounding rebuttal you had in mind, is it Bill? In any case, all examples of semiotic systems stem from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. agents), and there are no examples whatsoever of semiotic systems stemming from anything else. So the question is; does it follow that semiosis actually rises from unorganized matter? If your answer to this is “yes”, then on what empirical grounds is this conclusion drawn? Of course, you’ve already answered these two questions. Your answer to the first question is “yes” (i.e. you have actually advocated the entire exclusion of these material facts from any consideration) and your answer to the second question is endless doctrinaire obfuscation. This, of course, takes us back to your individually-preferred metaphysical assumption, as stated earlier:

Since you do not incorporate the observations within the argument into (at minimum) an open question, but instead insist that the material observations be excluded altogether, you necessarily put yourself into the metaphysical position that agency is a phenomenon which began singularly on earth. There is, of course, no material support for this position, and it has no advantage (logical or otherwise) over those who incorporate the observations to whatever degree they do.

Upright BiPed

From 1139:

Allan Miller: “Semiotic systems exist to communicate something from one intelligent agent to another. So either this isn’t one or someone has picked a very arcane communication medium. Or, we’ve broadened the term ‘semiotic’ to include non-communicative systems, so we can kid ourselves that by doing that, we have proven that agencies (who definitely make the inter-agency communicative kind) must also have made the non-communicative kind”.

When a CNC machine uses numeric control to produce a specified effect, is it a non-communicative system? Wiki: “Numerical control (NC) is the automation of machine tools that are operated by abstractly programmed commands encoded on a storage medium” …these objections are silly. Perhaps Allan can answer this question: If in one instance we have a thing that is a “genuine” symbol system, and in another instance we have something that just acts like a symbol system, then surely he can observe the material operation of the two systems, and point out the fundamental distinction between the two?

The venerable Creationist art of Definology

Allan has had ample opportunity to show the descriptions given in the argument are flawed in some way. He has been unable to do so. It is hardly convincing at this point to start simply making assertions to accomplish what he was unable to accomplish by reason. Upright BiPed

From #1142,

I prefer to say “I don’t know” when I don’t know to making something up (or accepting at face value what someone else has made up). There are lot’s of questions to which we don’t know the answer. The origin of life on Earth is one such.

OoL is not an open question in science, and it hasn’t been for at least two to three generations, if not much longer. The only open question is ‘how did it happen’ by an unguided process. The possibility of a guided origin never makes it past the purely ideological policing that stagnates origins science and education. This is a demonstrable fact, despite the material evidence and reasoning that a guided origin is a coherent empirical argument (including the one at the top of this page). The fact you must stoop to wildly false statements is illustrative of your position. You have no inclination whatsoever to say “I don’t know” (or you would have said it). So why pretend you do? Upright BiPed

Cabal:

Care to tell us a little about how the designer solved any of those major problems?

Which designer? Mung

I had this at the back of my mind and found I had saved the link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22392-first-life-may-have-survived-by-cooperating.html There are several source of science news available and I look them up every day. Cabal

The following videos have a fairly good overview of the major problems facing any naturalistic Origin Of Life scenario:

Care to tell us a little about how the designer solved any of those major problems? Cabal

Yes, Alan. WRT biology and evolution there is quite a bit that we do not know. And that is what teachers should tell students, as opposed to lying to them by telling them accumulations of random variations didit. And please, do continue to search. The more we uncover the better the design inference looks. Also being exposed to advanced technolgy allows the students of today to see the incredible parallels between that technology and biology. That should make them more skeptical of the nonsense their teachers are feeding them. And when their questions remain unanswered, your house of cards will crumble. Your only hope is that the world ends in a month. That is the only way your position will go out on top... Joe

Alan Fox:

But I find the interesting question (and the hardest for science to answer, I suspect) is where is the point that evolutionary processes can kick in...

You don't see the fundamental difference between the OOL question and this one? You have a theory of evolution, and yet you don't even know the minimal conditions required for evolution to occur. And yet the constant refrain is, all that's needed is a self-replicator, even though no one knows just what sort of self-replicator would be required. Mung

Sorry, mung, your scatter gun technique caused me to miss your question before but you asked me:

[AF]: But I find the interesting question (and the hardest for science to answer, I suspect) is where is the point that evolutionary processes can kick in.

A valid question. Explore it. Doesn’t it give you even the slightest pause that you don’t yet know the answer?

I prefer to say "I don't know" when I don't know to making something up (or accepting at face value what someone else has made up). There are lot's of questions to which we don't know the answer. The origin of life on Earth is one such. We may never know. Doesn't mean we cannot continue to search for answers, which is why scientific research continues in all sorts of directions that may not be immediately productive. Serendipity! Alan Fox

Yes, Bill, Semiotic Theory is not like Darwinism. It's not based upon the assumption that if you cannot possible show that it could not possibly happen that such a system could not possibly be constructed via slight intermediate steps therefore the theory must be true. Get over it. If it were like Darwinian theory, you'd be arguing that it is circular. UPB avoided all the circularity nonsense, so you have nothing left be to say but so what. Not a convincing rebuttal. Mung

UB:

Bill, a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship is a mandatory aspect of the system. It cannot function without it. Your rebuttal of this fact is based on simple denial. You are welcome to it.

Does it follow from the presence of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the system? Hint: Your answer is "no," as you have already affirmed that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/TRI/a semiotic state, one of which "entailments" is a mandatory physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. Reciprocating Bill

Allan Miller:

Semiotic systems exist to communicate something from one intelligent agent to another.

So their existence is not in dispute. And we ought then to be able to say something of what is required to instantiate such a system, what is required for one to exist. Care to weigh in?

So either this isn’t one or someone has picked a very arcane communication medium. Or, we’ve broadened the term ‘semiotic’ to include non-communicative systems, so we can kid ourselves that by doing that, we have proven that agencies (who definitely make the inter-agency communicative kind) must also have made the non-communicative kind.

That's a lot of ors. Going rowing? Or your reasoning could be flawed, God forbid!

The venerable Creationist art of Definology.

LOL! You're the one defining a semiotic system in terms of it's purpose as a system, "to communicate something from one intelligent agent to another." May as well define the system as designed by intelligent agents too while you're at it. What does it take for a communication system to not be arcane? (Ask those affected by hurricane Sandy.) Drums? Smoke signals? Lanterns? What is it about semiotic systems that requires that they must be created by an intelligent agent? Are physics and chemistry not sufficient? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

It’s in the Constitution?

Yes. It's right there next to your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of stupidity, if that's what makes you happy. Mung

RB:

What I will say is the following: - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. (UB: “Correct.”) - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. (UB: “Ditto.”)

Correct. It follows from all observations and experiences that only a certain class of mechanism, ie agency involvement, can produce a semiotic system to the exclusion of other certain classes of mechanism, ie blind and undirected processes such as natural selection and genetic drift. It's called science Bill, that is what has you so confused. Joe

Empty Reciprocating Bill comments aside, we still have empty Alan Fox comments, empty onlooker comments, empty keiths comments, empty Allan Miller comments, empty omtwo comments, empty toronto comments, empty Mark Frank comments, empty Zachriel comments, empty Robin comments, empty Joe Felsenstein comments and empty Elizabeth Liddle comments. My apologies to all the other empty commenters that I did not name. Joe

Bill, a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship is a mandatory aspect of the system. It cannot function without it. Your rebuttal of this fact is based on simple denial. You are welcome to it. Upright BiPed

Not that I expect it to make a whit of difference:

It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system.

It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Suppose, if you will, that your mechanical philosophy (for that's what it is) leaves something to be desired. Mung

Upright BiPed:

When the horse is dead, get off.

Horse meat. Yummy. Mung

Mung November 22, 2012 at 10:29 pm Allan Miller on November 22, 2012 at 10:34 pm said: No sooner said than done, lol. Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

It follows that many of your earlier characterizations of the conclusions that follow from semiotic theory (quoted above) were either unsupported or false.

Well you see Bill, that's just doesn't follow from your premises, so there's no reason for anyone to take it seriously. Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

Empty metacomments aside (regarding which see mine at 938, above)...

Says the master of the empty meta-argument. Mung

Empty metacomments aside (regarding which see mine at 938, above), UB:

apparently you will say anything at all.

What I will say is the following: - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. (UB: “Correct.”) - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. (UB: “Ditto.”) - It follows that many of your earlier characterizations of the conclusions that follow from semiotic theory (quoted above) were either unsupported or false. (UB: *silencio.*) Reciprocating Bill

It's pretty amazing, really. After all this time Reciprocating Bill finally comments on the content of the argument itself, and still gets it wrong. Mung

It seems that our friends need to go back to the needle in the haystack challenge. Seem to me they need to go back to How to be a True Skeptic school. They are giving skepticism a bad name.

Mung

H'mm: It seems that our friends need to go back to the needle in the haystack challenge. As in a haystack 1,000 LY on the side. KF kairosfocus

Bill, over at TSZ you argued for two months that I had used the word “entailment” in an improper fashion, and that until I corrected this dastardly misuse, you needn’t even address the evidence of the argument. When you were eventually forced to concede that the existence of recorded information indeed “entailed” the necessary material conditions of recorded information, I took a very modest position. I simply thanked you for the acknowledgement and was prepared to leave it at that. But that wasn’t good enough for you. You then came back by promoting the completely ridiculous question of ‘what any of this had to do with ID’. I was embarrassed for you. Now, here at UD, you are doing the same thing again. You are so determined to characterize the semiotic argument as meaningless that apparently you will say anything at all. It. But no matter how you’d like to spin it, it is hardly meaningless to have it demonstrated that a physiochemically-inert relationship is the proximate source of life on Earth. You’ve led off with the unsustainable idea that the semiotic argument is silent on causation, and when shown that it is not, you hadn’t the good sense to just leave it alone, but instead returned with your indefensible screed at 1119. Its as if I told you that since the fire tetrahedron cannot determine who or what set a fire, then rubbing two cubes of ice together is suddenly back in play. Give it a rest Bill. When the horse is dead, get off. Upright BiPed

...get to work and demonstrate semiotic systems can arise via blind and undirected processes.

They'll deny that semiotic systems exist. Or they will try to dumb down the definition, claiming a system is semiotic even when it lacks the properties of a semiotic system. Mung

the theory is silent on cause but we the people know semiotic systems only arise via agency involvement. Allan Miller:

Have you checked them all?

Scientific inferences do not require that anal-retentive detail. And it also leaves the falsication door open. So have at it- get to work and demonstrate semiotic systems can arise via blind and undirected processes. Until then all you have is whining. Joe

omtwo:

So the theory is silent on the cause so Joe inserts his “designer” on the basis of, well, nothing at all!

Spoken like a true idiot: So to recap- the theory is silent on cause but we the people know semiotic systems only arise via agency involvement. And THAT is why the existence of semiotic systems is positive evidence for Intelligent Design. Not that omtwo will understand any of that.

Joe, so what stops “the cause” being something other then your “Intelligent Designer”?

The same thing that stops unguided processes from constructing Stonehenge, an automobile or an airplane.

If you don’t know the cause on what basis can you claim it’s anything at all in particular?

Knowledge of cause and effect relationships- you know the stuff of science. Oh that's right, you don't know anything about science. Joe

So to recap- the theory is silent on cause but we the people know semiotic systems only arise via agency involvement. And THAT is why the existence of semiotic systems is positive evidence for Intelligent Design. Not that RB will understand any of that. toronto:

Joe, you have just stated that Upright’s theory is useless.

Cuz an impotent imp like you sez so? Strange that you can't make a case to support your tripe. Joe

Pathetic whining:

Semiotic theory is silent on the central causal question that animates this debate: whether the system in question originated by unguided means, or requires agency/design/intelligence.

The THEORY is silent on cause but everyone knows that unguided processes are not up to the task and that all semiotic systems come from agency involvement. IOW RB obvioulsy is just another scientifically illiterate evo. RB if you ever find an unguided process producing a semiotic system, that will be the first. So to recap- the theory is silent on cause but we the people know semiotic systems only arise via agency involvement. And THAT is why the existence of semiotic systems is positive evidence for Intelligent Design. Not that RB will understand any of that. Joe

UB:

The concept of the “fire tetrahedron"…cannot identify who or what started the fire (i.e. its origin). Likewise, the four entailments listed in the semiotic argument...cannot tell you the origin of the system. However, (contrary to your assertion) in neither of these cases is the knowledge of these systems suddenly “silent” on causation.

Semiotic theory is silent on the central causal question that animates this debate: whether the system in question originated by unguided means, or requires agency/design/intelligence. Moreover, semiotic theory is unlikely to contribute even at the margins to further empirical investigation into the the origins of the translation of DNA into proteins without articulating what “a semiotic state” entails that the contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not. Information you seem loathe to supply. So, as you have affirmed: - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. (UB: "Correct.") - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. (UB: "Ditto.") Now you wish to claim that you've been saying this all along, and your above affirmations are a non-event.

you already know full well that the semiotic argument I have presented doesn’t address the source of the semiosis,

Let us examine this claim further, by contrasting what you now affirm with some of your previous statements: You now affirm: - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. But in previous statements:

I am an IDist. I have demonstrated that the presence of recorded information within DNA (considered a major signature of design) is not also the result of Darwinian processes.

Which we now know to be false. It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/this-is-stunning/#comment-395941

This entire conversation was based on my claim that material forces “don’t have a mechanism for bringing information into existence in the first place”. Remember?

We now know that the claim upon which "this entire conversation was based" cannot have been founded in semiotic theory. It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. https://uncommondescent.com/news/james-shapiro-bill-dembski-asks-the-question-weve-all-been-dreading/#comment-414989

You see, if you had been able to actually produce the rise of information, that would have had a profound impact on me (and maybe others as well). It would have shown that recorded information really can emerge from unguided material processes…

We now know that nothing in semiotic theory per se renders that conclusion a surprise, as it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

It is now a recorded fact on this forum (over the course of three or four threads) that you…have also been given the reasoning as to why ID proponents claim that these observations are artifcts of design and cannot be assigned to purely material processes

Reasoning we now know to be mistaken, as it does not flow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/human-evil-music-logic-and-himalayan-dung-heaps/#comment-388810 Lizzie stated:

…”my position is that IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes.”

You demanded a retraction of this statement, citing your semiotic theory as a successful ID argument that bars a Darwinian explanation. But we now know: - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. (UB: "Correct.") - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. (UB: "Ditto.") Therefore, it is false that semiotic theory is an instance of an ID theory that demonstrates that this signature of ID (semiosis) cannot also be a signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes. Indeed, we now know that semiotic theory is silent on the question of design, and is therefore not even a theory of ID, much less one that bars Darwinian processes. And again: UB:

Just as an acknowledgment. Your retraction of this claim:

“IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes”

…would logically result in this statement:

IDists [from context: semiotic theory an an instance of ID] have suceeded in demonstrating that what they consider the signature of intentional design [from context: semiosis] is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes.

But we now know that semiotic theory provides no basis from which to request of Lizzie a retraction of her claim. It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/this-is-stunning/#comment-395958 And, of course:

You withdrew because the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process, and you know it.

We now know that "the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process" is not a conclusion of semiotic theory. It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. https://uncommondescent.com/news/james-shapiro-bill-dembski-asks-the-question-weve-all-been-dreading/#comment-414989

…It’s amazing that you consider this a win for your defense.

Is it? Reciprocating Bill

Allan Miller:

Well no, that’s the same error UBP is making. “Darwinian evolution requires the system [protein translation] in order to exist”, quoth he. An assertion completely without foundation.

Allan Miller:

As far as Darwinian evolution kicking in, it requires only a system with a particular property: the property of making copies of the system.

An assertion completely without foundation. Mung

Alan Fox:

But I find the interesting question (and the hardest for science to answer, I suspect) is where is the point that evolutionary processes can kick in.

A valid question. Explore it. Doesn't it give you even the slightest pause that you don't yet know the answer? Allan Miller:

As far as Darwinian evolution kicking in, it requires only a system with a particular property: the property of making copies of the system.

Two unsubstantiated assertions. You have no evidence that this is the case, and you have no strong evidence that this is the case. You fail as a skeptic. Define the system. Unless and until you define the system you have zero evidence that your claim ought to be believed. If all copies are identical, what is the basis for selection? Mung

Allan Miller:

I still favour the RNA world, or something like it, though I know plenty of biochemists laugh at that notion, because of the properties of RNA. But the problems with protein are no less – particularly a plausible mechanism that allows repetitive production of useful sequence.

Listen to yourself. You prefer the RNA world hypothesis. Why? They laugh at it because there is no evidence for it. Because it is implausible. Not believable. Because it has no strong evidence to suggest it is true. Mark Frank:

All it [skepticism] amounts to is the demand for strong evidence before believing anything.

Allan Miller believes in the RNA World hypothesis because he has strong evidence for his belief. Laughable. At best you can offer that the protein first world has it's own problems. How is that evidence in favor of your preference? Mark Frank:

It is not sufficient that other explanations are considered to be inadequate.

Unless you want to believe in the RNA World. Pitiable. And you call yourselves skeptics? Mung

Toronto:

The recorded information you’re talking about can come about in at least two ways: 1) The information could have been recorded into living things by an intelligent designer in order to guide their development towards a goal

How can that information can be recorded in a physical system? Are there no pre-requisites? How could that information be recorded in a physical system that does not already exist?

2) The information could be a record of the successful modifications of that information in living things, as they adapt to their environment, in a non-guided by a conscious intelligence process that has no goal.

How can that information can be recorded in a physical system? Are there no pre-requisites? How could that information be recorded in a physical system that does not already exist?

Your “semiotic theory” describes both.

No, it doesn't.

How does your theory tell them apart?

Maybe we can answer that after you've explained how the system came into existence. Mung

keiths:

But your “theory” isn’t just useless, it’s wrong.

Well, if it's wrong, then it's not useless.

The transfer of information via self-replicating molecules shows that your claim is false.

I missed the part where you recorded some information and then transferred it. And your claims say nothing about ID, therefore they are useless. Mung

keiths:

Bill is pointing out that by your own admission, the “semiotic theory of ID” — even if we assume it is correct — says nothing about ID. It’s useless.

It says nothing about ID, therefore, it is useless. From now on, I shall apply this standard to everything you write. What I find absolutely astounding is that purported "skeptics" seem to know nothing at all about reasoning. But of course, any real skeptic would be skeptical of reason itself. You all at TSZ are a bunch of FAKE skeptics. Mung

OMTWO:

But as it stands he might as well write it on a brick and throw it into the sea for all the impact it’s had or going to have.

We've already discussed floating bricks. Mung

Thanks to all the participants. Have a Happy and Safe Thanksgiving. I'm out for the holidays... :) Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed:

This establishes the necessary arbitrariness which is required in order to code and transfer information.

That's just an inconvenient fact. So we'll ignore it. Mung

So after all of the blah, blah, blibiddy, blibiddy, blah over on TSZ about how not being able to post here hinders their ability to refute our arguments, this is what we get? Really? BWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHHAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA Joe

Then please tell us the physics and chemistry that determined which codon represents which amino acid. Alan Fox:

There are plenty of books, internet resources etc that can inform you on the stereo-chemistry and other details of protein synthesis.

Really, Alan? Please tell me how any of those resources have anything to do with what I am talking about. This should be good seeing that I am not talking about protein synthesis. I want to know the physics and chemistry that determined which codon represents which amino acid. Not one word about proteins nor protein synthesis. Do you understand English, Alan? Or or you just obtuse? And more importantly, do you really think that your childish antics are going to convince people that evolutionism is useful? Joe

Alan,

Codon anticodon pairing and replication is governed by hydrogen bonding; physics and chemistry, transcription and translation same physics and chemistry.

The trivial basis of this objection was answered in my previous post. You may certainly wish to think that pure chemistry results in coding and translation, but you would be ignoring specific material facts. First off, there is no physical law that determines the sequence structure of the nucleic triplet. The triplet is an entirely rate-independent causal structure within the system. Secondly, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by the forces of pair binding (which were in operation at the beginning of the process). Instead, the specificity of the amino acid is determined in spatial and temporal isolation by the physical structure of the aminoacyl synthetase. This establishes the necessary arbitrariness which is required in order to code and transfer information. It also means that you must get from the triplet to the appearance of a specified amino acid without a direct physical connection between the two. You cannot get there by physical law alone. It requires the arbitrary coordination of the system in order to function. Upright BiPed

Alan,

Pattee’s expertise is not biochemistry.

The weakest retort of all is to attack the person in place of the content of their work. You claim that a heralded professot emeritus of physics has no place addressing physical chemistry, while saying nothing of his work itself. Great.

The point at issue is whether the biochemical reactions involved in protein synthesis can be considered “semiotic”.

It most certainly is, and the first step in answering that question is to understand, at the material level alone, what it means to be semiotic. You’ve declared an answer to that question without taking this manifest step. The final step is to take that model and compare it to the material process of protein synthesis, and see if the model concurs with what is observed. It does. But it is too late for you - you've already determined that it doesn't.

But there are no signs and signals involved in the biochemical reactions that occur when a specific amino acid is attached to its appropriate tRNA by a specific aaRS.

Again, you simply make this assertion without doing the work of understanding what it means to be semiotic from a purely material perspective.

It’s all physics and chemistry.

This is perhaps the second weakest retort of all. All material things in a material universe operate under the physiochemical laws of matter. When an ant produces a pheromone to communicate information to the other ants, that entire transfer of information is accomplished by “physics and chemistry”. When you read a letter from a friend, that entire transfer of information is accomplished by “physics and chemistry”. When a bee dances in front of the other bees in order to inform them of the correct direction to fly for food, that entire transfer is accomplished by “physics and chemistry”. No material thing is exempt from this, and consequently nothing is explained by it. So your suggestion that a thing ‘cannot be’ (simply because it follows the same physiochemical laws as everything else) does nothing but erect an impediment to further understanding... ...or protects a foregone conclusion. Upright BiPed

Then please tell us the physics and chemistry that determined which codon represents which amino acid.

There are plenty of books, internet resources etc that can inform you on the stereo-chemistry and other details of protein synthesis. Do you want me to post some links? Would you follow them? Would you read them? Try this resource Alan Fox

Alan Fox:

Well it seems UB confirms he is making an “irreducible complexity” argument for the origins of DNA translation. A problem for OOL research rather than evolutionary theory, I guess.

You guess wrong as the OoL directly impacts any subsequent evolution. If living organisms were designed then they were designed to evolve/ evolved by design. The ONLY way the blind watchmaker has sole dominion over evolution is if the blind watchmaker brought forth life from inanimate matter.

And still a default argument.

Only if you redefine the word "default". Joe

there aren’t any biochemical reactions that determine what codon represents which amino acid. Alan Fox:

Codon anticodon pairing and replication is governed by hydrogen bonding

Non-sequitur and irrelevant. Strange that you just don't care that you are dishonest.

physics and chemistry, transcription and translation same physics and chemistry.

Then please tell us the physics and chemistry that determined which codon represents which amino acid. Failure to do so is evidence tat you are lying, as usual. I am not baffled by your dishonesty. Rather it is expected as you are so desperate because you have nothing else.

What else do you think is going on in a living cell? Try to be specific.

Information processing, just as what goes on inside of computers. Computer programs are not reducible to physics and chemistry and there isn't any evidence tat living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry. Joe

@ mung

Information processing.

In an uncoded way I don't disagree.

There is, however, theoretical work which shows it could not have evolved from a simpler code.

On the other hand, there is quite a body of work in progress on the problem.

Do you think “code” is a misnomer?

No. It's a word. :) Alan Fox

Alan Fox:

What else do you think is going on in a living cell? Try to be specific.

Information processing. Lots of it.

There is no theory that fully explains the origin and evolution of the genetic code.

There is, however, theoretical work which shows it could not have evolved d from a simpler code. Do you think "code" is a misnomer? Mung

Do you think “codon” is a misnomer?

Words tend to be "frozen accidents". If the name sticks, like "junk DNA" we are stuck with it. So long as people define or clarify their usage, communication is not affected. "Codon" is fine. "Genetic code" is fine. We are referring to triplets or longer sequences of DNA. Promulgation of ideas has to go through the imperfect conduit of language. It requires an effort by both parties to a conversation to convey ideas but it is often worth the effort. Alan Fox

Alan Fox:

Codon anticodon pairing...

Do you think "codon" is a misnomer? Mung

Joe writes:

...there aren’t any biochemical reactions that determine what codon represents which amino acid.

Codon anticodon pairing and replication is governed by hydrogen bonding; physics and chemistry, transcription and translation same physics and chemistry. The specificity of aaRSs for the appropriate tRNA and amino acid is physics and chemistry. I'm baffled by your assertion. Truly baffled! What else do you think is going on in a living cell? Try to be specific. Alan Fox

Alan Fox:

The fact that it is almost universal across all extant and extinct life (where tested) suggests it was established very early on following life’s origin on Earth.

Yeah, right when the design of life was implemented here. Joe

OK Alan, please tell us about these biochemical reactions involved that determined the genetic code. Alan Fox:

There is no theory that fully explains the origin and evolution of the genetic code.

Nice non-sequitur. Alan, YOU made a claim that obvioulsy you cannot support.

However, protein synthesis, where a peptide chain sequence is determined by the RNA sequence being translated is a panoply of biochemical reactions.

So what? That does nothing to support your claim as there aren't any biochemical reactions that determine what codon represents which amino acid. Joe

OK Alan, please tell us about these biochemical reactions involved that determined the genetic code.

There is no theory that fully explains the origin and evolution of the genetic code. The fact that it is almost universal across all extant and extinct life (where tested) suggests it was established very early on following life's origin on Earth. But, of course, there is no way of answering your question; nobody knows. Maybe if life elsewhere (or its remains) turns up the focus will change.

Codons do NOT become amino acids via biochemical reactions, Alan.

Of course you are correct, Joe. Codons do not become amino acids at all! However, protein synthesis, where a peptide chain sequence is determined by the RNA sequence being translated is a panoply of biochemical reactions. Genetic DNA is the catalyst, acting as a template for the messenger-RNA. It is unchanged in the process and does not "become" anything else. Alan Fox

omtwo:

All Upright has to do is use his “idea” and produce something, some novel information or insight.

Darwin didn't do that. Evolutionism doesn't do that.

Darwin had an idea. Darwin went out and supported that idea.

Liar. Joe

Allan Miller:

Well no, that’s the same error UBP is making. “Darwinian evolution requires the system [protein translation] in order to exist”, quoth he. An assertion completely without foundation.

Allan, your entire position is completely without foundation. And it is very noticeable tat yiou cannot produce any evidence to refute UB's argument. Imagination and promissory notes don't cut it in science.

Darwin himself was unaware of the details of molecular biology, and the principle of NS never did hinge upon them.

Darwin couldn't test his claims and natural selection has never been observed to do anything. IOW Darwin's claims have failed the test of time.

Either Life-without-protein never existed, or it is now extinct. UBP simply declares the former, without evidence

Again, your entire position is without evidence. So perhaps you should stop whining and get to work. Joe

Ala Fox:

The point at issue is whether the biochemical reactions involved in protein synthesis can be considered “semiotic”.

OK Alan, please tell us about these biochemical reactions involved that determined the genetic code.

But there are no signs and signals involved in the biochemical reactions that occur when a specific amino acid is attached to its appropriate tRNA by a specific aaRS.

What a clueless jerk. What biochemical reactions determined the genetic code Alan? What biochemical reactions determined which codon REPRESENTS which amino acid? Codons do NOT become amino acids via biochemical reactions, Alan. So now it is clear that Upright Biped's argument is not incoherent, rather Alan' Fox's thinking process (if you can call it that) is incoherent. Joe

Actually, its appropriate humility in the face of a material evidence, Alan. You should give it a try.

Something for all discussants to take on board (with a pinch of scepticism!). ;) Alan Fox

Pattee's expertise is not biochemistry. The point at issue is whether the biochemical reactions involved in protein synthesis can be considered "semiotic". You write:

This [the physical structure of the aaRS] is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

But there are no signs and signals involved in the biochemical reactions that occur when a specific amino acid is attached to its appropriate tRNA by a specific aaRS. It's all physics and chemistry. Alan Fox

I apologize if I have given offence. You obviously suffer from “mote and beam” syndrome

Actually, its appropriate humility in the face of a material evidence, Alan. You should give it a try. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill,

These establish that semiotic theory is devoid of relevance to the central question that animates this debate, e.g. origins through agency (intelligence, design, etc.) versus origins through natural (unguided) processes. It is silent on causation.

This is just simply untrue. You keep making these statements that are rather like empty buckets you haul around, hoping that they might contain something of interest, while at the same time using your doctrinaire prose to disguise the simple fact that they are entirely empty. The relevance of the semiotic argument has already been explained to you using the very similar example of the “fire tetrahedron”. I’ll give it to you again. The older “fire triangle” stated that fire required three material conditions (i.e. a heat source, an oxidizer, and a fuel) as the necessary ingredients of a fire. But as it turns out, the mere existence of those three ingredients by themselves were not sufficient to indicate the presence of fire. What was required was the addition of a unique identifying process. The fire tetrahedron closed that loop by adding the specific process of combustion to the three material conditions; which when present, was sufficient to indicate the presence of fire. Likewise, there are three material conditions which are necessary for the transfer of recorded information (i.e. a material representation, a material protocol, and a materially-arbitrary relationship between the representation and its effect). The mere presence of these three conditions cannot confirm the existence of recorded information transfer, yet with the addition of a unique identifying process, they can. That unique identifying process is the production of unambiguous function, as seen throughout the living kingdom. Together, these three material conditions in the presence of this unique identifying process can confirm the transfer of recorded information. While the concept of the “fire tetrahedron” can confirm the existence of a fire, it cannot identify who or what started the fire (i.e. its origin). Likewise, the four entailments listed in the semiotic argument can confirm the transfer of recorded information; but it cannot tell you the origin of the system. However, (contrary to your assertion) in neither of these cases is the knowledge of these systems suddenly “silent” on causation. As stated earlier in this thread regarding the tetrahedron and a confirmed instance of a fire; if a fire investigator knows that a fuel and heat source (i.e. specific material conditions) are required for fire, then that investigator will know that the cause of that fire will have had to provide those specific requirements if they are not locally accounted for otherwise. If they can be accounted for, then the investigator will have no reason to search further in order to identify them. So to say that the fire tetrahedron is “silent” on causation is simply not true. The knowledge of the tetrahedron is the backbone of the investigation. The semiotic argument plays an identical role in a confirmed instance of information transfer; it provides a model of the material conditions which must be met (in order to explain what must be explained). Specifically regarding DNA processing (even if we set aside the question of a source of the material components involved) we can observe the system in operation. We can account for the material conditions present in the representations and protocols, and we observe the unambiguous function as a result of the system. However, we have no mechanism to account for the arbitrary relationship which exists between the representations and their effects, nor for the coordination of the protocols in specifying those effects. So unless you can document something to the general effect that “under unguided condition X, and in the presence of A, B, and C, a relationship will form between A and C mediated by B”, then it is completely obtuse and ignorant to suggest that the semiotic argument has nothing interesting to say (“devoid of relevance”) regarding causation. Your attempts to belittle the argument (having been unable to refute it) are hereby noted. :) Upright BiPed

Perhaps he will return an insult me some more.

I apologize if I have given offence. You obviously suffer from "mote and beam" syndrome :) Alan Fox

Bill, Thank you for the admission that the argument has no evidentiary or logical flaws. As for your revamped killer question, you've always placed too much count on it. Of course, you were forced to by late July. The answer remains what it has always been. By the way, will your conception of the unguided transition from a system of pure mechanisl determinism to system of arbitrary relationships remain forever a secret? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill and Alan Fox, Everyone notices that you cannot/ have not produce any evidence for unguided processes producing semiotic systems. I know that you don't care that you come off as little whiney cowards, but you do. Do you think that helps your cause? Joe

#1081

AF: If you or anyone could point out where the representations and protocols are in protein synthesis, there might be something to rebut. Mung: This has already been done in this very thread, and probably over at TSZ as well.

The representations (nucleic triplets) and protocols (aminoacyl synthetases/aaRS) were identified within the genetic translation system.

From the OP: 8. During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function. 9. From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process is determined by the physical forces of pair bonding. Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation. 10. This physical event, translation by a material protocol, as well as the transcription of a material representation, is ubiquitous in the transfer of recorded information.

And then also there was this:

UB to Alan Fox, Sept 17th: "I suggest reading relevant materials, the Physics of Symbols by physicist Howard Pattee would be a good place to start." UB to Alan Fox, Nov 13th Pattee, as a Professor Emeritus of Physics, has studied the material constraints brought on by the presence of information in material systems for almost half a century. He was speaking specifically from a material perspective. You should attempt to educate yourself on these matters in place of making ill-conceived statements. Perhaps you could start here: The physics of symbols…Howard Pattee

Alan Fox seems to be unaware of the issues at hand. Moreover, as he has already demonstrated upthread, he seems to have no real interest in engaging material facts. Perhaps he will return an insult me some more. For persons of his caliber, this inevitably serves as the placemat of choice. Apparently, there is no sense of intellectual embarrassment to overcome. Upright BiPed

UB's empty metacomments and self-congratulations aside, what has emerged from the above is as follows: By means of UB's direct assent: - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. These establish that semiotic theory is devoid of relevance to the central question that animates this debate, e.g. origins through agency (intelligence, design, etc.) versus origins through natural (unguided) processes. It is silent on causation. Further, by implication: - The following statement is false: “The observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process." And by UB's tacit admission (reflected in his refusal to address the question): - What does “a semiotic state” (and therefore the presence of “the entailments” and the TRI) entail that the contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? Not a thing.

“Whatever, it doesn’t matter anyway”.

This is a fair assessment of the status of semiotic theory in light of the above admissions/omissions. As I stated on July 19: "When I claim that natural, unguided events may also account for phenomena that display “the entailments,” semiotic theory is compelled to remain silent, because it makes no claims regarding the cause of the entailments. Absent such causal claims, nothing in semiotic theory, nor the relationship of “the entailments” to the transfer of recorded information, excludes the natural (unguided, etc.) origin of the entailments (it is silent on causation). And, because in semiotic theory the entailments are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the transfer of recorded information/a semiotic state, it follows that nothing in semiotic theory excludes the possibility that the necessary and sufficient conditions of (for?) TRI/a semiotic state may have arisen through natural (unguided, etc.) events." http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1108&cpage=1#comment-14914 If you're content with what survives in semiotic theory following this theoretical orchiectomy, then have at it. Reciprocating Bill

Alan,

The central thesis of the book – that living cells perform computations – arises from contemporary findings in the biological sciences, especially biochemistry and molecular biology. It is a leitmotif of systems biology, although the philosophical ramifications of that new discipline are rarely expressed. – Dennis Bray, Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell (2009)

Do you know who Dennis Bray is? The facts are inconvenient, so you just deny them? Mung

Alan Fox:

If you or anyone could point out where the representations and protocols are in protein synthesis, there might be something to rebut.

This has already been done in this very thread, and probably over at TSZ as well. By the way, your objections at 972/973 was also dealt with. I seem to have missed your response. Mung

Mung:

Was that remark ever formed into an actual argument? If not, it’s just a bald assertion and probably got the attention it deserved.

If you or anyone could point out where the representations and protocols are in protein synthesis, there might be something to rebut. Alan Fox

Alan Fox:

And regarding incoherence, I think it has already been remarked that equating semiotics with protein synthesis makes no sense.

Was that remark ever formed into an actual argument? If not, it's just a bald assertion and probably got the attention it deserved. Mung

And regarding incoherence, I think it has already been remarked that equating semiotics with protein synthesis makes no sense. Alan Fox

Does Reciprocating Bill have the integrity to admit he’s lost the argument?

Which argument? The argument as to whether UB has made an incoherent argument? The argument as to whether UB has made a default argument? The argument as top whether UB has made an argument that addresses evolutionary theory or OOL? The argument as to whether UB's argument has anything to do with ID? Alan Fox

Does Reciprocating Bill have the integrity to admit he's lost the argument? Does onlooker have the intellectual honesty to admit that the argument is far from incoherent? wagers, anyone? Mung

edit for clarity: "The semiotic argument demonstrates conclusively that the processing of recorded information in the genome (which is the proximate cause of all living things on Earth) requires..." Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill,

It establishes that semiotic theory as you have articulated has nothing to say regarding causal origins of the phenomenon in question, just as you state above.

This is merely a deflection of the force of the argument. We’ve dealt with this before, and I am fine in dealing with it again. But let us first take stock of where we are. This is, once again, your tacit admission that you have no refutation to offer of either the material observations or the logic employed. Your parade, which began as a staunch rebuttal, has now passed, and your measured wish at this point is only to belittle the argument as useless in considering the origin of the systems at issue. But is it? Having lost the ability to prove it wrong through reasoning and logic, you will of course argue that it is indeed useless. I am unaffected by such repositioning on your part. In the end, your maneuverings are more a matter of competitive convenience and an unwillingness to accept the loss; certainly not the grand convictions you began with. The semiotic argument demonstrates conclusively that the processing of recorded information (which is the proximate cause of all living things on Earth) requires a formal system of two sets of coordinated material objects in order to function. Each of these objects clearly demonstrates a characteristic beyond its physiochemical make-up; one set are material representations and the other set are translation protocols (rules) instantiated in matter. It further demonstrates that these two sets of objects comprise an irreducibly complex core which is fundamental to the transfer of recorded information. And finally, it demonstrates that this complex core was required prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution, given that Darwinian evolution requires the system in order to exist. The establishment of these required material conditions, based on both universal observation and logical necessity, demonstrates that a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state was essential prior to the evolution of Life on Earth. Your closing comments (i.e. 'granting arguendo', 'it’s useless') can be easily taken for the intellectual value they represent: “Whatever, it doesn’t matter anyway”. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill:

Suggests that it offers no other usable, testable implications as well, and therefore has no other empirical uses. You mean no other use than to point out the way things actually are and therefore what really needs to be explained? I'd say that's empirically useful. You propose to off an explanation for something that doesn't exist or to offer an explanation that doesn't really explain what is there? That's your idea of empirical?

Mung

Reciprocating Bill is worse than a kid before Christmas. If he can't open his presents when he wants then they do not exist. Reciprocating Bill, YOUR inability or unwillingness to go through the process step-by-step suggests that you have an agenda. And your actions throughout demonstrate that at least part of that agenda is obfuscation. Joe

UB:

It’s amazing that you consider this a win for your defense.

It establishes that semiotic theory as you have articulated has nothing to say regarding causal origins of the phenomenon in question, just as you state above. Your inability or unwillingness to address the following...

What does “a semiotic state” (and therefore the presence of “the entailments” and the TRI) entail that the contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not?

Suggests that it offers no other usable, testable implications as well, and therefore has no other empirical uses. Reciprocating Bill

Onlooker, let’s build on your own words and understanding.

You know what Jesus said about building on sand. onlooker's words and understanding are no less shifting. Mung

Onlooker, let's build on your own words and understanding.

this means that the protein that ultimately is synthesized after transcription produces mRNA is arbitrary with respect to the original DNA since there is no direct physical connection between the two.

It's wonderful that you have so clearly articulated the essential characteristic you've been asking for. The relationship between the representation and the effect it produces within the system is "materially arbitrary". D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. "no direct physical connection between the two". - - - - - - - This fits nicely with: "That mapping is context specific, not an inexorable law" (Aug 21) ...and... "The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).” (Aug 30) ...and... "You ask about a mechanism. The issue of the representation being materially arbitrary to its effect does not address any proposed mechanism which may establish that relationship within a system. It does not address (in one way or another) whether a potential mechanism is purely law-based, or contains stochastic or other non-deterministic elements, or otherwise – it simply acknowledges that the relationship between the representation and its effect is not a matter of inexorable law. You cannot derive one from the other (without the system)". (Oct 4) - - - - - - - - Will you be posting your long-awaited rebuttal now? Upright BiPed

onlooker:

Based on these two, the most succinct definition I could come up with is: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

And just what is it you think that defines? Mung

Upright BiPed:

You’ll need a transition from pure determinism to a system built upon an arbitrary relationship between objects that never interact. All unguided by the investigator.

But since you cannot show that it could not possibly be the case that a transition from pure determinism to a system built upon an arbitrary relationship between objects that never interact could take place, you lose. Besides, a stochastic system could do it. Mung

Reciprocating Bill @ 1061 So? Mung

Upright BiPed,

And all this was done, of course, while you played the “granting arguendo” card (which is code “oh shit” in the Materialism vs Design debate). I didn’t play that game then. I’m not playing it now either.

I don't see that as a game, nor as any kind of code. While I'm still interested in understanding the details of your argument, Reciprocating Bill has touched on an important question that you avoided answering repeatedly when you were commenting on The Skeptical Zone: How, exactly, does your argument support ID? onlooker

Upright BiPed,

"The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word "apple" written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent)." Yet, you have refused for the past 40 days to articulate what you find ambiguous about this description, preferring to sling insults instead.

Not true. As noted repeatedly, I based my questions on your statement you quoted here and on this one:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

Based on these two, the most succinct definition I could come up with is: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. I then, again repeatedly, asked some questions about it: Is this really what you mean? It doesn't feel quite right to me because your example of a word triggering a memory does involve a physical process of observing the written word, the automatic firing of neural connections, and the retrieval of memories from a physical brain. Is your definition of "arbitrary" referring to the fact that this is a multistep process? Now, based on the rest of your comment, I have some optimism that we can progress the discussion.

You continue to insist that I include a mechanism in this description, even as you refuse all examples which would illustrate that a mechanism is not germane to the definition.

I think this is a red herring. I'm not asking you to specify a mechanism, I am asking if what you mean by the word "arbitrary" refers to the lack of a direct physical mechanism. If you would simply answer my questions directly, this wouldn't be an issue.

So I can now only ask: What do you mean by “Not connected by any direct physical mechanism”? If you can explain what you mean in a way that I can understand it, then I will be able to answer your question as to whether or not it applies to my argument.

Excellent. Let's make some progress. It appears that what you are ultimately trying to claim is that protein synthesis in a cell (transcription and translation) is a semiotic process, by your definition of "semiotic". It further appears that it is important to your argument that some aspect of a semiotic process is "arbitrary". Given the examples you've provided, the best understanding I can come up with of what you mean by "arbitrary" is that the process involves multiple steps and there is no component in the system that controls those steps explicitly. If I understand your meaning, and I am not confident I do, this means that the protein that ultimately is synthesized after transcription produces mRNA is arbitrary with respect to the original DNA since there is no direct physical connection between the two. So, does my proposed definition: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. reflect how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does it lack? Does a process being composed of multiple steps make it arbitrary? onlooker

Reciprocating Bill,

What I have is your admission that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that only design, agency, intelligence etc. can give rise to such systems.

Correct, I did not assume any conclusions in the observation of evidence. Excellent.

What I also have is your further admission that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided processes cannot give rise to such systems.

Ditto. It's amazing that you consider this a win for your defense.

And, flat fact: what I have is your admission that it is false that “the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process". That is false.

You'll need a transition from pure determinism to a system built upon an arbitrary relationship between objects that never interact. All unguided by the investigator. Good luck on that.

No wonder you avoided answering my questions regarding causation from July 17 to November 12:

Yes, you implied a massive refutation going back for months based on faulty logic, circularity, and anything else one might imagine. That all came crashing down in June. So in July you began to ask "Well, what does this all mean anyway!?". Hilarious. And all this was done, of course, while you played the "granting arguendo" card (which is code "oh shit" in the Materialism vs Design debate). I didn't play that game then. I'm not playing it now either. Upright BiPed

What we have here is Reciprocating Bill admitting that his position has absolutely nothing. IOW it is obvious that “the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process.” Otherwise RB would be posting evidence. Joe

UB:

It’s too late in the game to be indefinite, Bill. You either have something or you don’t.

What I have is your admission that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that only design, agency, intelligence etc. can give rise to such systems. What I also have is your further admission that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided processes cannot give rise to such systems. And, flat fact: what I have is your admission that it is false that "the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process." That is false. No wonder you avoided answering my questions regarding causation from July 17 to November 12:

Upright Biped, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.  Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1108&cpage=1#comment-14933 So, UB, why not cut to the chase and tell us where this all goes? Granting arguendo your argument and conclusion above, where does it go? At TSZ I asked you (about 20 times) what “a semiotic state” entails that “the transfer of recorded information” does not. I now restate that question in a slightly more generalized form that should be easier for you to answer: What does “a semiotic state” (and therefore the presence of “the entailments” and the TRI) entail that the contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? Here are some things you have already stated do NOT follow upon identifying a system as semiotic: - It does not follow that the system must have had intelligent or agentic origins. - It does not follow that the system could not have arisen by unguided means. What, then, what DOES necessarily follow? What DOES follow from characterizing the transcription of DNA as “a semiotic state” as you describe it that does not follow from a description of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA? Absent any further description of what follows from declaring “a semiotic state,” it really doesn’t much matter whether your “observations” and “logic” above are correct or not. They simply don’t go anywhere. Reciprocating Bill

Toronto:

My “bricks” and “corks” transferred information regarding their mass, without a “material representation”.

No they didn't.

Your defence of Upright’s “theory” is to agree that it doesn’t do anything?

No attack was launched, no defense was required.

Despite not studying physics, only an ignorant caveman would make his raft out of rocks instead of cork after seeing that.

But if all you've got are rocks...

A ship will displace X mass of water depending on the thickness of the hull and the volume of space in the hull.

How much information would it displace?

If the hull was solid, a ship built of material with greater mass than water, would sink.

Unlike a ship built with a hull full of holes.

Upright’s argument has been refuted as no “representation of matter” was required for the transfer of information, in this case, that corks have less mass than bricks.

Really big corks have more mass than really small bricks.

No language, no protocol and no pre-existing information was required.

No information is required to float a brick. Agreed. So information about mass was transferred, but that was with no concept of mass, or brick, or cork, or water. Got it. Mung

Reciprocating Bill at 1034, I was correct in my earlier assessment; your answers are an unspoken acknowledgement that you have no refutation to offer. As is ‘par for the course’, this is skillfully cloaked in stoic, face-saving, obfuscation. It’s too late in the game to be indefinite, Bill. You either have something or you don’t. And you don’t. The only thing of any substance in your response is the question of differing kinds of information. You mention this as a part of your response to both questions. Yet this is nothing more than a lingering attempt to add pointless ambiguity to an otherwise coherent (and unrefuted) understanding of the systems in action. You did not (and cannot) make a case for it. The word “apple” (spoken or written) is an arrangement of matter that evokes a specified effect within a system. The grooves on a vinyl record are an arrangement of matter that evokes a specified effect within a system. The chemical make-up of a particular pheromone is an arrangement of matter that evokes a specified effect within a system. There are untold numbers of differing kinds of information transfer, and they are each transferred within untold numbers of differing kinds of systems. Each of these systems has the capacity to react to the transfer, and produce specified effects. Some transfers of information result in us knowing what an actor is saying on the stage, so that we may follow along the plotline in the play. Some transfers of information result in the perfect milling of parts to be used in a machine of some kind. Some transfers make the doe stop to feed her young when they gesture for it. Some coordinate individual bacteria cells to attack a host at a particular point in time. Some cause relays, gates, and pumps within our municipal systems to switch and operate on order to maintain our cities. Others cause specific amino acids to be added to growing polypeptides in our cells. In each and every one of these cases there is an arrangement of matter evoking a response within the system, and a second arrangement of matter to establish what that response will be. The fact that you’d like to refer to some of these as “signals”, and others as “representations”, and others as “symbols” in entirely superfluous and unnecessary to the material function of the systems involved. Your personal language preferences are moot at the material level, and it is at that material level where the observations and the descriptions are made. There have now been tens of thousands of words between us on this matter, and you are down to making distinctions that present to no difference whatsoever in the systems at issue. My argument stands. As for Elizabeth Liddle: Dr Liddle had been on UD for quite some time making lots of claims she was unable to back up. She had suggested that she could write a simulation causing the rise of information using any definition of “information” that an ID proponent wanted to use. She accepted that challenge, and then recanted after she discovered that information had real world material consequences which she would have to deliver in order to falsify the ID claim. She not only failed to falsify the ID claim, but ended up supporting it. Here is a highly compressed assortment of highpoints from the conversation where she was given the argument (using the same general observations which you also cannot refute):

EL: …my position is that IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes. EL: I simply do not accept the tenet that replication with modification + natural selection cannot introduce “new information” into the genome. It demonstrably can, IMO, on any definition of information I am aware of. UB: Neo-Darwinism doesn’t have a mechanism to bring information into existence in the first place. To speak freely of what it can do with information once it exists, is to ignore the 600lbs assumption in the room. EL: Well, tell me what definition of information you are using, and I’ll see if I can demonstrate that it can. EL: What makes it information, I think we agreed, is when it is not the objects themselves, but a arrangement of those objects that produces the specific effects. As, for example, when a codon produces an amino acid, not because the nucleotides themselves produce this effect, but because the arrangement of the nucleotides produce this effect. EL: I claimed that ID claims that information (by any definition ID proponents wish to use) cannot be generated by Darwinian processes, or indeed Chance and Necessity, can be demonstrated to be false. EL: I freely conceded that I could not make good on your challenge. My original claim assumed a different definition of information from the one you have asked me to use.

…and later

UB: (regarding heritable information) …you’ll need a source of symbolic representations and transfer protocols operating in a coordinated system. The rise of formalism doesn’t come cheap. EL: You know, Upright BiPed, you are absolutely right! Darwinian evolution doesn’t explain how replication with heritable variation in reproductive success first came into being!

Of course, she never recanted her false claim about ID’s ability to proffer an argument that Darwinian evolution could not also explain. She could only be forced to imply she didn’t really understand the argument (although the record shows she came to understand it fully. Frankly, she may wish you to stop reliving the moment for her. I join her in that wish. Elizabeth’s unfortunate learning curve was made public on this forum by her own claims against ID, and it was then made drastically more pronounced by her unwillingness to accept what was being shown to her. Why don’t you people just leave it alone? As for your specific comment regarding Dr Liddle, you already know full well that the semiotic argument I have presented doesn’t address the source of the semiosis, no more than the fire tetrahedron tells you who or what started a fire. Like the fire tetrahedron, it tells you what is materially required for the effect to occur Upright BiPed

Toronto doesn’t care what the facts are. He only wants to get a response.

From now on I'm going to call that "floating a brick" in his honor. Mung

Mung at 1051,

quoting Toronto: "The bottom line is bricks sink and corks float and that informs you of their mass relative to water, without any “representation instantiated in matter”.

Geeez. It is inconceivable that this guy is still trying to sell this line. He says information has been transferred when you see the bricks sink and the corks float. But when these things are seen, is it ‘sinking bricks’ and ‘floating corks’ traveling through the optical nerve to the brain? Or is it a transcribed representation of those objects which will then be translated into a usable cognition by a material protocol in the visual cortex? This objection is now six or seven versions old… (each one answered to him with the same facts)

Toronto: May17th Go to a barbershop anywhere in the world and get a haircut … the information regarding the success of your haircut will be transferred through your eyes and into your brain … No protocol, no code, no semiotic process of any kind involved … Imagine that a stray photon hits my face and bounces off a mirror into my eye… etc etc etc

Toronto doesn’t care what the facts are. He only wants to get a response. Upright BiPed

tonto:

Upright’s argument has been refuted as no “representation of matter” was required for the transfer of information, in this case, that corks have less mass than bricks.

Umm the brick, matter, sinks through water, also matter. So the representation of the sinking of one piece of matter through another, would be "a representation of matter required for the transfer of information"- and actually it would just be data, not information, that was/ would be transferred.

No language, no protocol and no pre-existing information was required.

That is false. In order to make information out of the data, pre-existing information is required. And I could make a brick that floats and a rock that flaots. Heck according to you evos anyone who walks on a frozen lake is floating on water. So I went to a frozen lake, tossed a brick and a cork on it and neither sank. You lose, tonto. Joe

The bottom line is bricks sink and corks float and that informs you of their mass relative to water, without any “representation instantiated in matter”.”

Joe: Nope. You already have to have that information. toronto:

No you don’t, any more than an accountant “already” has the information that Rice Crispies cost more than a Popsicle, simply by virtue of being educated as an accountant.

Nice non-sequitur tardgasm, there, toronto. And a popsicle can cost more than Rice Crispies, so what? An ignorant person would nave no idea why the brick sank nor why the cork floats. Therefor no information was transferred. If that experiment is conducted in front of a totally ignorant person, such as yourself, they wouldn’t have any clue as to what happened nor why.

Despite not studying physics, only an ignorant caveman would make his raft out of rocks instead of cork after seeing that.

Humans make ships out of heavy-than-water concrete. Joe

...and it is entertaining.

It is that. Mung

toronto chokes:

The bottom line is bricks sink and corks float and that informs you of their mass relative to water, without any “representation instantiated in matter”.

Nope. You already have to have that information. If that experiment is conducted in front of a totally ignorant person, such as yourself, they wouldn't have any clue as to what happened nor why. But please keep grasping at straws. It exposes your desperation and it is entertaining. Joe

Reciprocating Billy:

So far as I am concerned, the fat lady sang vis Upright’s semiotic theory during this exchange:

The fat lady sang a long time ago vis YOUR position and the semiotic theory. Ya see Billy YOU still don't have any evidence that unguided evolution can do it. I take it that it bothers you that your position has nothing... Joe

Toronto:

The bottom line is bricks sink and corks float and that informs you of their mass relative to water, without any “representation instantiated in matter”.

According to your logic, anything with mass greater than a brick should sink. But ships with a greater mass than a brick float. So much for your logic. Mung

keiths:

How is this relevant to whether Upright’s argument is wrong?

And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information. This evidence demonstrates a central prediction of ID – that the genome is a semiotic process. It also demonstrates the most prolific example of irreducible complexity in the natural world. And also that, using Darwin’s own standard, evolution is incapable of establishing that process. keiths:

How is this relevant to whether Upright’s argument is wrong?

For someone who hasn't been following along, it probably isn't. But the statements and 'arguments' of someone who hasn't been following along are likewise irrelevant. Mung

keiths:

Mung, You are amusingly predictable.

You're a predictable liar and there's nothing amusing about it.

2) that you wouldn’t bother to actually understand what the article says.

Which article? Do you think your google search returned only one article?

1) you would find that title irresistible, and that you would cherry-pick it for no other reason,

So you knew your search would return more than one result? So "the article" refers to which article? And you knew I would cherry pick that one article? But the facts show that I actually looked at at least two articles. So much for your powers of prognostication.

I was right on both counts.

You were right on neither count.

Second, the article states:

Which article? The search returned more than one result.

To make a successful argument for ID based on this idea, you would need to show that Shapiro’s hypothetical system of cross-replicating molecules was too complex to have arisen via unguided natural processes. Have at it.

By your own admission, such challenges are not objective. Come up with an objective falsification and we'll listen. How does one even begin to falsify the claim that a hypothetical system of cross-replicating molecules was too complex to have arisen via unguided natural processes? Have at it. Mung

The TSZ Motto: "He can't prove that I can't imagine that I might be right and he might be wrong, therefore..." Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

In his above exchange with me he clearly indicates that it does not follow from semiotic theory that the entailments of information transfer are beyond even a conceptual unguided process.

So? Once again the 'critic' retreats behind the non-objective "if you can't prove me wrong" excuse. Is that what it means to be a skeptic these days? If you can't prove me wrong I must not be wrong? Mung

Toronto:

Toronto:

Upright’s “Semiotic Theory” is really a “Semiotic Labeling Theory” where he points out labels used in understanding human language and communications, and mapping them onto biology.

So? You have a theory of labeling not dependent upon human language and communications? Toronto:

His “theory” ends right after the labeling is done but before any analysis or conclusions are reached.

So? Toronto:

I also have a theory that’s just as useful where I apply labels to ID as in, “The Genesis Theory Of ID”.

Great theory. So? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

Granting arguendo your argument and conclusion above, where does it go?

It goes straight to the heart. Why would you grant an argument which has been claimed to be incoherent? Why would you grant an argument of which it is asserted that the premises are false?

Granting arguendo your argument and conclusion above, where does it go?

I take it that you, along with so many others from TSZ, are not able to refute it. So you, like so many others from TSZ, have to take a different approach to the argument, one that does not address the facts, the evidence, or the argument itself.

I have no opinion vis this question.

Is that because you are just ignorant of the science? Mung

When you return, UB, why not cut to the chase and tell us where this all goes? Granting arguendo your argument and conclusion above, where does it go? Your argument is essentially that the "material evidence" establishes that the transcription of DNA into proteins is an instance of the transfer of recorded information, and therefore exhibits "the entailments" of the TRI, by which you mean the universally necessary and sufficient conditions for the transfer of recorded information. Those necessarily also confirm "a semiotic state." At TSZ I asked you (about 20 times) what "a semiotic state" entails that "the transfer of recorded information" does not. It was a question motivated by the same puzzlement that motivates this post. Your replies were non-responsive reproductions of the definitions of "the TRI" and "a semiotic state" that failed to address the question. I now restate that question in a slightly more generalized form that should be easier for you to answer. What does "a semiotic state" (and therefore the presence of "the entailments" and the TRI) entail that a contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? Here are some things you have already unambiguously stated do NOT follow upon identifying the system as semiotic: - It does not follow that the system must have had intelligent or agentic origins (including living agents). - It does not follow that the system could not have arisen by unguided means. Then, what DOES necessarily follow? What DOES follow from characterizing the transcription of DNA as "a semiotic state" that does not follow from a description of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA? Absent any further description of what follows from declaring "a semiotic state," it really doesn't much matter whether your "observations" and "logic" above are correct or not. They don't go anywhere. Reciprocating Bill

I see Bill's answer. It looks like a non answer, or rather, an answer in the negative. I'll return later to respond. I don't have time now. I'm off to Turn One Row Six of the Formula One US Gran Prix. Cheers Upright BiPed

And keiths proves he dies NOT understand science:

To make a successful argument for ID based on this idea, you would need to show that Shapiro’s hypothetical system of cross-replicating molecules was too complex to have arisen via unguided natural processes.

No, you scientifically illiterate evo. YOU or someone else has to demonstrate such a thing is possible. Joe

keiths, Exactly what information is being transferred by self-replicating molecules? Please be specific. If you cannot say then you still have nothing. Joe

Here we report a first development in this direction, using DNA tile motifs that can recognize and bind complementary tiles in a pre-programmed fashion. We first design tile motifs so they form a seven-tile seed sequence; then use the seeds to instruct the formation of a first generation of complementary seven-tile daughter sequences; and finally use the daughters to instruct the formation of seven-tile granddaughter sequences that are identical to the initial seed sequences.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7368/full/nature10500.html Tell us keiths, is this system IC? Is it capable of Darwinian evolution? Mung

Hey Eric, I think keiths is trying to get your attention with the following: Life Did Not Appear with A Self-Replicating Molecule Mung

Toronto:

I think what Upright means by “materially arbitrary”, is that it is not constrained by any material restrictions.

No, that's not what he means. If it's a material system it's going to be constrained. He's not proposing a perpetual motion machine. Mung

onlooker:

“Arbitrary” as used in your argument does not seem on inspection to be the same as it is used by Elizabeth.

Yes, it does.

Her usage is perfectly aligned with that in the dictionary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

And Upright Biped's usage is also perfectly aligned with that in the dictionary:

1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law [the manner of punishment is arbitrary] 2 a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority [an arbitrary government] b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power [protection from arbitrary arrest and detention] 3 a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something [an arbitrary standard] [take any arbitrary positive number] [arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee] b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will [when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary— Nehemiah Jord

#s 1 & 3A, duh Joe

And Reciprocating Bill still can't find any evidence that support that claims of his position. That is why he is relegated to posting raw spewage. Bill, your continued whining proves that you have nothing. Thank you. Joe

I don’t find observations at the top of the page.

Of course you don't. Mung

UB:

Which one of the observations at the top of this page have you shown (or can show) to be false?

I don't find observations at the top of the page. I do find a definition: "A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system." Definitions are neither true nor false. Rather, as the content of a definition changes, the set of objects and phenomena picked out by that definition changes. Some definitions call out referents in a way that "carves nature at the joints," while others don't. Those that do are useful conceptual tools, while those that don't have less use or are misleading. Ergo, "A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system" is neither true or false, although it can be said to be more or less accurate and useful relative to competing definitions. That said, I don't find this definition t to be very satisfactory for a number of reasons. For example, it blurs crucial distinctions between exemplars that "represent" in the sense of "symbolize" with other, non-symbolic forms of representation. (The word "Apple" and the grooves of a 78 rpm record "represent" in senses that are fundamentally different, as the undulations of the grooves of a recording of Beethoven's 5th clearly don't in any sense "symbolize" that symphony, and bear a much less arbitrary relationship to their referent.) Your definition also picks out phenomena that in my opinion are not representational at all (pheromones and animal nudges do not "represent," in my opinion). It omits the intentionality inherent in representation. And so forth. The claims that build upon your definition of "representation" are not further observations. Rather, they form an hypothesis or a model that similarly must be evaluated with respect to degrees of accuracy and usefulness relative to competing models. However, you have already stated that this model neither requires nor excludes agentic versus unguided origins, obviously the key question in this discussion. It might still prove its usefulness were it to generate other unique, testable empirical predictions, but I have yet to see any.

Have you shown, or can you show an example of invalid logic in the conclusions stemming from the observations at the top of this page?

Of course, logic is evaluated in the reasoning that yields a conclusion, not in the conclusions themselves. That said, I don't find the your chain of follow-on claims to be linked by logical arguments (either valid or invalid), but rather see bare claims offered without attempted logical justification. And, as above, I find them stemming from a definition, not an observation. Most important, given the fact that semiotic theory neither requires nor excludes particular classes of causation, I find the ultimate conclusion toothless with respect to the origins of the phenomena it concerns, rather than illogical. >> Do you believe that the working scientists and researchers who are proponents of biosemiosis (even those who profess complete methodological materialism in their discipline) are incorrect in their assessment that the translation of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state? If so, how are they mistaken, and what would you say to them to correct their error(s)? I have no opinion vis this question. By the way, although to Lizzie you stated:

You withdrew because the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process, and you know it.

We now have this exhange: RB:

Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

I think you owe Lizzie a retraction, as you above clearly state that semiotic theory per se does not place the entailments of information transfer beyond even a conceptual unguided process. Reciprocating Bill

Many proteins in living cells appear to have as their primary function the transfer and processing of information, rather than the chemical transformation of metabolic intermediates or the building of cellular structures. Such proteins are functionally linked through allosteric or other mechanisms into biochemical 'circuits' that perform a variety of simple computational tasks including amplification, integration and information storage. - Dennis Bray, Protein molecules as computational elements in living cells

http://vimeo.com/18143991 Mung

The central thesis of the book - that living cells perform computations - arises from contemporary findings in the biological sciences, especially biochemistry and molecular biology. It is a leitmotif of systems biology, although the philosophical ramifications of that new discipline are rarely expressed. - Dennis Bray, Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell (2009)

What are the physical/material requirements of a system capable of performing computations? Mung

Yet, you have refused for the past 40 days to articulate what you find ambiguous about this description, preferring to sling insults instead.

What else are you going to do when you've run out of face-saving options and are too full of yourself to admit it? Mung

onlooker:

Her usage is perfectly aligned with that in the dictionary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

But that doesn't rule out that it could be connected by a direct physical mechanism.

D3: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

Fail Mung

Onlooker, If the relationship between a material representation and its material effect is subject to 'choice', then it is free from inexorable law. And if this description is modified by the word “materially” then this freedom from inexorable law is tied not to a choice, but to the material involved. If this should somehow escape your intellectual grasp, then for the remainder of humanity it would be clarified by the follow-on clarification: “The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).” Yet, you have refused for the past 40 days to articulate what you find ambiguous about this description, preferring to sling insults instead. You continue to insist that I include a mechanism in this description, even as you refuse all examples which would illustrate that a mechanism is not germane to the definition. So I can now only ask: What do you mean by “Not connected by any direct physical mechanism”? If you can explain what you mean in a way that I can understand it, then I will be able to answer your question as to whether or not it applies to my argument. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Regarding Onlooker, "I notice you still won’t answer simple questions about your definitions."

Elizabeth Liddle: Like the arbitrary mapping of the symbol "b" to the sound "buh". Any symbol would do. So the mapping is arbitrary.

As I stated 84 days and 1006 comments ago. I mean what she means.

Perhaps you do, but since she is no longer allowed to post here we can't easily find out. Allow me to remind you how I came up with my formulation for the definition you are so unwilling to provide:

The word "arbitrary" is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word "apple" written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

Okay, in the interest of progressing the discussion, let me take a stab at a definition based on this. The need for a precise definition comes from your paragraph 3:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

So, based on these two quotes, my first attempt is: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is this really what you mean? It doesn't feel quite right to me because your example of a word triggering a memory does involve a physical process of observing the written word, the automatic firing of neural connections, and the retrieval of memories from a physical brain. Is your definition of "arbitrary" referring to the fact that this is a multistep process?

"Arbitrary" as used in your argument does not seem on inspection to be the same as it is used by Elizabeth. Her usage is perfectly aligned with that in the dictionary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. So, if you are actually interested in making your argument understandable instead of running from any risk of being proven wrong, show some minimal intellectual integrity and answer the questions directly. onlooker

Unicorns are real! Mung

keiths: "Now consider self-replicating molecules." Here's a better idea: let's consider the unicorn . . . C'mon, let's at least talk about real entities, can we? Eric Anderson

keiths:

Your argument is that 1) Darwinian evolution depends on the “transfer of recorded information”

And you offer no reason to believe otherwise. Check. keiths:

2) the “transfer of recorded information” requires two distinct arrangements of matter, a “representation” and a “protocol”

And you offer no reason to believe otherwise. Check. keiths:

3) the representation is necessarily distinct from the thing it represents, with the protocol providing the “bridge” between the two

And you offer no reason to believe otherwise. Check. keiths:

4) the representation and the protocol form an irreducibly complex system

And you offer no reason to believe otherwise. Check. keiths:

5) though you’re oddly afraid to say so explicitly, you are inviting readers to conclude that this irreducibly complex system must have been designed.

And you offer no reason to believe otherwise. Check.

Now consider that your argument is incoherent.

Oops. How did that bit from onlooker get in there? keiths:

Now consider self-replicating molecules.

Why? Mung

Finally, is it over now?

Define finally. Mung

Toronto:

Then Mung said, “I’ve just thrown some water into the pool”, and I said, “The water level is higher, therefore water has been added to the pool”.

And I said, "after the water drops were added the water level was lower." So how much information do you have and how did you measure it? Do you know what a non sequitur is? Do you know what circular reasoning, and begging the question are? I told you I added drops of water. Your conclusion is that therefore, water was added. Well, duh! No information there. You say you took a measurement and the water level was higher. How do you know that? How do you know it wasn't lower? No information there. Say it follows by necessity that if water is added to the pool the water level rises. So if I add water and the water level rises have you really gained any information? No information there. So You take a "before" measurement and an "after" measurement and the water level is higher. Does it follow that water was added to the pool? No. Maybe someone drove a car into the pool. No information there. But how can the water level be lower after water is added? The pool was in the process of being drained. It was a hot day and water was evaporating. Like I said. You never stop long enough to think. What you haven't done is rebut the argument in the OP. Mung

As I stated 84 days and 1006 comments ago. I mean what she means.

But what does she mean by "mapping", "symbol", "b", "sound" and "buh". Without that how can we possibly know anything, which means your theory is refuted. Finally, is it over now? :roll: Joe

keiths:

... your only hope is to demonstrate that information transfer via self-replicating molecules is impossible. Good luck with that.

lol Mung

Like the not connected by any direct physical mechanism mapping of the symbol “b” to the sound “buh”. Any symbol would do. So the mapping is not connected by any direct physical mechanism. buh Mung

Regarding Onlooker, "I notice you still won’t answer simple questions about your definitions."

Elizabeth Liddle: Like the arbitrary mapping of the symbol “b” to the sound “buh”. Any symbol would do. So the mapping is arbitrary.

As I stated 84 days and 1006 comments ago. I mean what she means. Upright BiPed

Regarding Keith,

Keith wants Mung to ask me a) if a self-replicating molecule can transfer information, and b) what the representation and protocol are in this self-replicating molecule. He also wants to know if they would therefore comprise an irreducible complex system. As for his last question, I have already stated that representations and protocols are irreducible complex. As for his first two questions, he is specifically asking me to identify objects within a system which he does not identify. This puts me in the rather awkward position of identifying objects within whatever system I might imagine, or even worse, identifying objects within whatever system he might imagine. Obviously his questions are pointless. So if he will provide an example of a self-replicating molecule, then I will analyze it and provide an answer.

Has Keith provided an example of a self-replicating molecule yet, or is he still claiming such details are “irrelevant”? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill, You have now posted five times since I asked you to give me the same straight answers I have given you. Do you plan to address those questions, or not? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill, I don’t mean to impart any inconsistency, and I believe the context of the conversation demonstrates that I haven’t. You had asked me what class of mechanism could and could not create a semiotic state. I had already answered the first part of your question by drawing on the observation that all semiosis on earth stems from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. an agent). And here is my answer to the second part of your question: “Again, I refer to observation; inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial condition provides no examples of producing semiotic states. I would also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function, such as Darwinian evolution as it is documented to function in living things. It should be abundantly clear from this that I was addressing any speculated material process being the source of the semiosis in the genome on a pre-biotic earth. It should also be obvious that this would include the Darwinian process which requires that semiosis in order to exist. You then went on question why an agency mechanism is not also disqualified on the grounds that it would require semiosis as well. However, it does not follow that a proposed agency mechanism requires the semiosis in the genome of a pre-biotic earth, which is the very thing needing an explanation. As I said in my previous response; “The question at hand is the source of semiosis on this individual planet roughly 3 billion years ago, not the ultimate source of organization in any conceivable context.” In short, in the first instance I was addressing a material process which cannot logically both explain the semiosis on earth while at the same time require it for existence. And in the second instance I was addressing an agent mechanism which can explain that semiosis because it does not depend upon it. Again, this should be obvious from the context. Upright BiPed

keiths:

5) though you’re oddly afraid to say so explicitly, you are inviting readers to conclude that this irreducibly complex system must have been designed.

How so? Surely IC systems can just 'poof' into existence. Now consider self-replicating molecules. Why? Is it an example of an IC system that just 'poofed' into existence? Mung

Ah, the lying troll, onlooker, is back. With more lies. And more repetition of a non-definition. That's why onlooker is a lying troll. 1. The Lies. 2. The Trollish behavior. Mung

Upright BiPed, Speaking of attempting to make your argument coherent, I notice you still won't answer simple questions about your definitions. Let's try again. D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? onlooker

Upright BiPed, A much better 1000th comment would be what keiths posted on The Skeptical Zone. While I've been trying to get you to put your argument into some coherent form, keiths took the more holistic approach of applying his own intelligence to create something coherent out of your word salad and addressing the most fair interpretation of it:

Upright, Thank you for responding to my rebuttal of your argument. I enjoy the rare moments when you come out of hiding and actually engage those critics of yours who have been banned from UD. That said, I won’t hide my disappointment at the evasiveness of your response. You failed to address my key points — points which are fatal to your argument, as you and I both know. Your argument is that 1) Darwinian evolution depends on the “transfer of recorded information”; 2) the “transfer of recorded information” requires two distinct arrangements of matter, a “representation” and a “protocol”; 3) the representation is necessarily distinct from the thing it represents, with the protocol providing the “bridge” between the two; 4) the representation and the protocol form an irreducibly complex system; and 5) though you’re oddly afraid to say so explicitly, you are inviting readers to conclude that this irreducibly complex system must have been designed. Now consider self-replicating molecules. a. Information can be transferred from a self-replicating molecule to its “offspring”. In my rebuttal, I described how a message could be sent from sender to receiver via a chain of self-replicating molecules. b. A self-replicating molecule is its own representation, yet in your argument you incorrectly claim that the representation must be distinct from the thing it represents. c. You claim that besides the representation, there must be a distinct arrangement of matter that you call the “protocol”. Well, there is no second arrangement of matter in the case of self-replicating molecules, so the “protocol” doesn’t exist. Yet information gets transferred anyway. So your claim that a protocol is required is incorrect. d. If you were to try to argue that the self-replicating molecule is both the representation and the protocol, you would run into another problem, because your claim was that the representation and the protocol are separate arrangements of matter, and that together they form an irreducibly complex system. Your argument is therefore still wrong, even if you try this maneuver. e. Another gambit would be for you to claim that self-replicating molecules don’t really transfer information, but that would be absurd because I’ve already showed how you could send a message using self-replicating molecules. You would be claiming that sending a message does not constitute a “transfer of recorded information”, which would be ridiculous. f. You could attempt to argue that Darwinian evolution depends on the kind of information transfer you envision, with a representation and a distinct protocol. However, that’s just not correct. To get Darwinian evolution, all you need is replication with heritable variation and differential reproductive success. Your argument is in tatters, Upright.

His summary sentence is spot on. onlooker

UB:

I did not tell you that among the kinds of causes that ‘cannot originate semiosis’ are those that require information to function.

But earlier: RB:

Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

UB:

also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function

? Reciprocating Bill

Reciprocating Bill, I am still interested in the answers you assured you’d provide from the preceding exchange: >> Which one of the observations at the top of this page have you shown (or can show) to be false? >> Have you shown, or can you show an example of invalid logic in the conclusions stemming from the observations at the top of this page? >> Do you believe that the working scientists and researchers who are proponents of biosemiosis (even those who profess complete methodological materialism in their discipline) are incorrect in their assessment that the translation of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state? If so, how are they mistaken, and what would you say to them to correct their error(s)? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill,

UB: If it is a matter of universal observation that all examples of semiosis on this planet originate/operate from massive pre-existing organization, on what grounds am I obligated to exclude that observation when considering the origin of semiosis on this planet? RB: On the grounds that you just stated that among [the] kinds of causes that observation tells us cannot create/originate/cause the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state are those that require recorded information to function. Do not all living agents require recorded information to function? If so, why aren’t they excluded on that ground?

First, the technical flaw I did not tell you that among the kinds of causes that 'cannot originate semiosis' are those that require information to function. Second, the logical flaw To follow your logic: When considering a potential source for semiosis on this planet, I should exclude the universal observation (that all examples of semiosis on this planet originate from massive pre-existing organization) because such a source may also require massive pre-existing organization. One does not follow from the other. A deliberate exclusion of the material observations does not follow from any proposed requirement for the existence of the source. The question at hand is the source of semiosis on this individual planet roughly 3 billion years ago, not the ultimate source of organization in any conceivable context. Thirdly, the metaphysical assumption Since you do not incorporate the observations within the argument into (at minimum) an open question, but instead insist that the material observations be excluded altogether, you necessarily put yourself into the metaphysical position that agency is a phenomenon which began singularly on earth. There is, of course, no material support for this position, and it has no advantage (logical or otherwise) over those who incorporate the observations to whatever degree they do so. And finally, the unanswered question Will excluding the observation negate the material requirements? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill,

However, to me you have just affirmed that semiotic theory itself tells us neither what mechanisms can give rise to a semiotic state nor what mechanisms cannot give rise to a semiotic state.

Again, are you suggesting that we should attempt to apprehend a causal mechanism without understanding what is necessary of it? This does not square with your follow-on comment; “Of course a description of the system we wish to understand is a crucial element in the search for causes.” As has already been explained via the example of the fire tetrahedron; the tetrahedron defines (without exception) what is required for a fire to occur, but does not identify who or what may have caused the fire. Yet, if a fuel and heat source (specific material conditions) are required, then we know that the cause of that fire will have had to provide those requirements if they are not locally accounted for otherwise. This is non-controversial.

The question is, does adding “the system is semiotic” as defined in semiotic theory to that description add anything of value to our current physiochemical understanding?

It tells us that the process has a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated within it which is not only necessary for it to operate, but is also the specific source of the function it produces. And as you say, this is a “crucial element” if we wish to understand the system as it actually exist. There is no principle involved that says we should we ignore this material fact. To the contrary – and regardless of any metaphysical disposition – proper systematic investigation demands it. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill:

Because it is silent on causal history/mechanism, I fail to see the added scientific value of construing the translation of DNA into proteins as “semiotic” over and above what we already know about the process.

so? Is that supposed to be an argument against the use of the term? IS the system a semiotic system or not? If we know a system is chaotic, we should not call it chaotic because calling it chaotic adds nothing we don't already know. Is that your argument? Mung

What a great way to highlight 1000 posts of no refutation. Mung

RB:

However, to me you have just affirmed that semiotic theory itself tells us neither what mechanisms can give rise to a semiotic state nor what mechanisms cannot give rise to a semiotic state.

Observations and experiences take care of that.

Because it is silent on causal history/mechanism, I fail to see the added scientific value of construing the translation of DNA into proteins as “semiotic” over and above what we already know about the process.

It is semiotic RB. And what we already know should be more than enough to abandon unguided evolution.

The question is, does adding “the system is semiotic” as defined in semiotic theory to that description add anything of value to our current physiochemical understanding?

yes, it does. Joe

keiths:

Now consider self-replicating molecules.

We cannot consider what doesn’t exist.

a. Information can be transferred from a self-replicating molecule to its “offspring”. In my rebuttal, I described how a message could be sent from sender to receiver via a chain of self-replicating molecules.

Unfortunately you still do NOT have a self-replicating molecule capable of such a thing. Your "argument" can't even get started, keiths. Joe

UB, above (to keiths) you remind us:

the conclusion of the earlier argument is that “the search for an answer to the rise of the recorded information in the genome needs to focus on mechanisms that can give rise to a semiotic state, since that is the way we find it.”

However, to me you have just affirmed that semiotic theory itself tells us neither what mechanisms can give rise to a semiotic state nor what mechanisms cannot give rise to a semiotic state. Because it is silent on causal history/mechanism, I fail to see the added scientific value of construing the translation of DNA into proteins as "semiotic" over and above what we already know about the process.

What else constrains the evaluation of a “set of possible causal mechanisms” if not what is necessary for them to accomplish?

Of course a description of the system we wish to understand is a crucial element in the search for causes. The question is, does adding "the system is semiotic" as defined in semiotic theory to that description add anything of value to our current physiochemical understanding? Given that you have unambiguously stated that semiotic theory neither requires a nor excludes a particular kind of causation, I don't see that adding "semiosis" to the description we already have adds anything of value, or aids in that search.

If it is a matter of universal observation that all examples of semiosis on this planet originate/operate from massive pre-existing organization, on what grounds am I obligated to exclude that observation when considering the origin of semiosis on this planet?

On the grounds that you just stated that among kinds of causes that observation tells us cannot create/originate/cause the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state are those that require recorded information to function. Do not all living agents require recorded information to function? If so, why aren't they excluded on that ground? Reciprocating Bill

RB:

However, even granting the conclusion of that chain of propositions, I don’t see anything that speaks to causation, and therefore what the theory per se has to do with either designed or unguided causation.

Except there isn't any evidence that any unguided causation can produce a semiotic system and plenty that demonstrates agencies can and do. So with that in mind, what do you think RB? Or can that fit in your little, bitty mind? Joe

Reciprocating Bill,

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

No.

Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

No.

If either, how does that constraint flow from the theory itself, “per se?”

Answered.

If neither, how can the theory itself can be said to constrain the set of possible causal mechanisms? Would it not be silent on causation?

What else constrains the evaluation of a “set of possible causal mechanisms” if not what is necessary for them to accomplish? Are you suggesting that we should attempt to apprehend a causal mechanism without understanding what is necessary? Are you suggesting that all causal mechanisms are equal? If these are not what you are suggesting, then knowing 'what is necessary' helps to illuminate any proposition to follow. Do you disagree?

Also, within your framework, do not living agents (displaying massive organization) require recorded information to function? Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function?

If it is a matter of universal observation that all examples of semiosis on this planet originate/operate from massive pre-existing organization, on what grounds am I obligated to exclude that observation when considering the origin of semiosis on this planet? Will excluding the observation reverse the material requirements?

I do intend to at least begin to directly address your questions by this weekend.

Excellent. I’ll repeat them here for convenience: >> Which one of the observations at the top of this page have you shown (or can show) to be false? >> Have you shown, or can you show an example of invalid logic in the conclusions stemming from the observations at the top of this page? >> Do you believe that the working scientists and researchers who are proponents of biosemiosis (even those who profess complete methodological materialism in their discipline) are incorrect in their assessment that the translation of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state? If so, how are they mistaken, and what would you say to them to correct their error(s)? Upright BiPed

Alan , unfortunately, you've made yourself perfectly clear... AF: Upright Biped your argument is 'incoherent'. UB: What's incoherent about it? AF: I can't say, but it's 'impossible to parse'. UB: Well... what terms do you think are ambiguous? AF: I'm not going to say, but there's no doubt you are 'refusing to clarify' them. UB: If you can't say, then how can you even say it's incoherent? AF: Never mind about that. I've made my point. I'm moving on. Upright BiPed

Is this Keith’s refutation?

1. Evolution requires a mechanism for the transfer of recorded information.

Yes.

2. The transfer of recorded information depends in all cases on an irreducibly complex core.

Yes.

3. The core cannot be provided by evolution, because evolution cannot even begin unless the core is already present.

Evolution by means of the transfer and translation of recorded information cannot begin until recorded information and a mechanism to transfer and translate it are present. Therefore evolution cannot be the origin of that system.

4. The core cannot be provided by ‘chance and necessity’, because it is too complex.

“Too complex” is a hopelessly vague (rhetorically loaded and useless) characterization, but in principle, there is no prohibition to chance and necessity being the origin of the system. Chance and necessity are not discounted as the origin simply because the system is “too complex”; they are discounted because there exist not one single shred of evidence anywhere in the real world that they are capable of producing the material requirements of system. On the other hand, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming and absolute (as in universal).

5. Therefore, the Designer did it.

This is not a part of the argument. The conclusion at the top of this page is that “the transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information. It’s an arbitrary relationship instantiated in matter”, and the conclusion of the earlier argument is that “the search for an answer to the rise of the recorded information in the genome needs to focus on mechanisms that can give rise to a semiotic state, since that is the way we find it.” The argument I’ve made, and its conclusions, are about the facts on the ground. You operate under the idea that chance and necessity can account for those facts; and I do not. But neither of those positions changes the facts on the ground. In other words, you are arguing against the validity of the observations and logic because you don’t like to additional hurdle it creates for a conclusion which you prefer. That is understandable if viewed solely from an ideological perspective, but it changes nothing whatsoever about the reality.

In reality, evolution can begin as soon as there is heritable variation with differential reproductive success. Molecules that self-replicate with imperfect fidelity fit the bill.

Firstly, you steadfastly refuse to incorporate (or account for) what is known at the material level. This is the main reason why talking with you is fruitless in terms of communicating about real world material consequences. You say that evolution can begin “as soon as” there is differential reproductive success, but you fail to incorporate the fundamental requirements of that reality. Darwinian evolution functions by variation to an informational medium, a physical genotypic record, entirely distinct from the phenotype that it produces. That cannot happen without the material conditions described in the argument. This does not establish that chance and necessity cannot produce those material conditions; but it (necessarily) established the conditions which must be met in order to accomplish what must be accomplished. It is nothing more than avoidance to pretend otherwise. One gets the impression that you’d like to look to deterministic systems and establish a beachhead on the problem of having an arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system. Fine, provide an example. Upright BiPed

I mean "even granting the conclusion of that chain of propositions arguendo..." Reciprocating Bill

Well, Bill, it's amazing how you just can't seem to bring yourself to comment upon how incoherent it all is and just wish us all the best and move on. Does it bother you that you're making your partners in crime look bad by not toeing the party line? Mung

UB, would you please clarify the following: I asked,

Please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state… Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

You responded to the first with "massive organization (i.e. living agents)" and the second with "inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial condition [and] any process that requires recorded information in order to function." However, you also stated that this response "doesn’t flow from semiotic theory per se, it flows from universal observation of the physical world" (e.g., from "universal experience" and "observation.") My questions about this: Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? If either, how does that constraint flow from the theory itself, "per se?" If neither, how can the theory itself can be said to constrain the set of possible causal mechanisms? Would it not be silent on causation? Also, within your framework, do not living agents (displaying massive organization) require recorded information to function? Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function? I see a short circuit between your answer to my first question and your answer to my second. I do intend to at least begin to directly address your questions by this weekend. However, even granting the conclusion of that chain of propositions, I don't see anything that speaks to causation, and therefore what the theory per se has to do with either designed or unguided causation. Reciprocating Bill

Alan Fox:

I am reminded of the old Arab proverb: Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe.

And THAT sums up TSZ rather nicely-> All they can do is bark while science passes them by. For their next trick they will roll over and piss themselves... Joe

Alan Fox:

Your critics are just being obtuse...

They just are obtuse.

... and the scales of skepticism will eventually fall from their eyes.

Right after hell freezes over... Joe

well keiths, I've been carefully watching your self-replicating molecule and I haven't seen it self-replicate once. Something appears to be missing. Is it perhaps asleep? Does it need to eat first? Maybe play some music? Mung

It seems to be incoherent only to certain visitors from TSZ. What's in the water over there? Mung

I am reminded of the old Arab proverb: Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe. Alan Fox

What is this ambiguity you keep claiming exist?

Upright Biped, I have never used the word "ambiguous" in relation to your arguments. I think they are incoherent. It's not a problem. The possibilities, I guess, are twofold at least. One: Your argument breaks the mould and advances the breadth of human knowledge. Your critics are just being obtuse and the scales of skepticism will eventually fall from their eyes. Two: Your argument is, in fact, incoherent. Not sure where you go from here but best of luck! Alan Fox

keiths' argument: Srm is a self replicating molecule. Srm self-replicates, creating a copy of Srm, call it Srm2. Therefore there was a transfer of recorded information from Srm to Srm2. Therefore, no semiotic system is required for the transfer of recorded information. That's his alleged "rebuttal." What a joke. Mung

keiths:

While you’re waiting impatiently, Upright, how about responding to my rebuttal of your argument?

Obvioulsy you do NOT understand what a "rebuttal" is and obvioulsy you have no idea what UB's argument is as you have shown no indication that you understand it. Joe

Mung @986: LOL! Eric Anderson

Petrushka:

But suppose we do a little thought experiment. Let’s agree that gpuccio’s definition entails a threshold. Say 150 bits. That implies that 149 bits does not trigger the dFSCI indicator. The number is arbitrary, but gpuccio’s paradigm requires a threshold.

You mean the number is not connected by any direct physical mechanism? Maybe you need to define what you mean by arbitrary! Mung

Toronto:

Information transferred without a “representation instantiated in matter”: 1) The water level is higher, therefore water has been added to the pool.

Do you ever stop talking long enough to think? That's a complete non sequitur. If you want to rely on irrational arguments go right ahead, but I have no obligation to accept your nonsensical conclusion. In fact, I measured the water level in the pool and the water level was actually lower! Mung

Toronto on November 13, 2012 at 7:45 pm said:

You’ve defined “information” as being arbitrary.

Why, because it's not connected by any direct physical mechanism? Maybe you need to define what you mean by arbitrary! Mung

Toronto:

Take some objects and throw them into a pool of water.

ok. I took some drops of water and threw them into a pool of water.

The ones that float are lighter than water and the ones that sink to the bottom are heavier.

I had some difficulty ascertaining the trajectory of each of the drops of water once they hit the pool of water.

No “representation instantiated in matter” was used to transfer this “information”.

What information. Mung

Toronto:

UBP/Mung, we at least now know that “arbitrary” is not what onlooker has attempted to define.

Congratulations. We've known it now for hundreds of posts. And all those assertions by onlooker that she's defined or attempted to define arbitrary are false. A sham. A subterfuge. An excuse for not engaging in real debate.

So, what is the definition of “arbitrary” as UBP uses it?

Read the freaking thread. Mung

Bill, you were implying a total refutation of my argument as far back as 2011, so I am suprprised that the simple question "Have you done so?" has caught you so unprepared. Take all the time you need. Upright BiPed

UB:

You failed to answer a single question regarding your position. Since you are defending your position as much as attacking mine, shall we assume from your lack of response that you do not wish your position to be subject to evaluation?

LOL! I first posed those questions to you in July during the course of our discussion at TSZ, but you abandoned the thread rather than respond. I repeatedly re-posted those questions many, many times. You acknowledged seeing them in September, but made an excuse about attending to Onlooker and still did not respond. Now you post a a few questions, and a few hours later and you leap to that conclusion? I'm busy with professional responsibilities. I'll respond later, maybe tomorrow, perhaps this weekend. Reciprocating Bill

Alan,

It is not productive to rebut incoherence.

This is yet another simple assertion which you refuse to support. Why do you refuse to support your assertions? Doesn't some sense of intellectual embarrassment not drive you to support the claims you make? If you can articulate an ambiguity in the terms of the argument at the top of this page, then I will address it. What is this ambiguity you keep claiming exist? Upright BiPed

Bill, You asked a set of questions of me, which I answered each directly. I then posed a set of questions for you. You failed to answer a single question regarding your position. Since you are defending your position as much as attacking mine, shall we assume from your lack of response that you do not wish your position to be subject to evaluation?

I take this response as your assent that semiotic theory, as you have articulated it, itself does not constrain answers to my questions above, but is instead silent on the causation/origins of the entailments/TRI/a semiotic state.

On the contrary, understanding the fundamental material conditions required for the transfer of recorded information provides a valuable (and indeed necessary) understanding if we are to realistically evaluate any mechanism proposed as the originator of those material conditions. As indicated in the answers I gave you to your previous questions, the material conditions of TRI are only associated with massive pre-existing organization, and have never been observed without it. This universal observation cannot help but play a role in the evaluation of any mechanism proposed as the origin of such a system requiring those material conditions. If it does not play a role, then certainly the proposition must negate that observation with suitable evidence to the contrary. Now, as to the questions you did not answer in the previous posting: Which one of the observations at the top of this page have you shown (or can show) to be false? Have you shown, or can you show an example of invalid logic in the conclusions stemming from the observations at the top of this page? Do you believe that the working scientists and researchers who are proponents of biosemiosis (even those who profess complete methodological materialism in their discipline) are incorrect in their assessment that the translation of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state? If so, how are they mistaken, and what would you say to them to correct their error(s)? Upright BiPed

Alan Fox:

Now protein synthesis is a process, a dynamic series of events.

Therefore, protein synthesis is teleological. Funny how a committed Darwinist will appeal to teleology when desperate enough.

Surely, just on that basis, any aspect of protein synthesis can’t be described as a state, semiotic or not.

Oh really:

Specifically within switching circuit concepts, engineering students seem to enjoy creating state transition diagrams, mainly because they are easy to construct! Also, from state transition diagrams, state transition Tables can be created, and vice versa. By using biology as the data for switching circuits, engineering students can grasp the concepts of biology quicker because they use a tool that they enjoy. For example, given the well-known Table of the genetic code mapping of codons to amino acids, an engineering student may apply his or her knowledge of switching circuits to it. Perhaps an engineering student would create a state diagram for this mapping. In another application, an engineering student may create a state diagram for proteins, where a beginning state is methionine and the three final states would be stop codons. Or perhaps an engineering student will identify that the redundant sixty-four to twenty mapping of codons to amino acids becomes data for a switching circuit with “don’t care” inputs. By looking at biological processes as switching circuits, the engineering student gains knowledge of biology and the full relevance of engineering principles to other disciplines.

The Switching Circuits of Biology Mung

onlooker, the proven liar and troll, continues to troll:

D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument?

No.

If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

That's not a definition.

Put up or shut up.

Now there's a convincing argument. Troll Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

Just to be clear, I take this response as your assent that semiotic theory, as you have articulated it, itself does not constrain answers to my questions above, but is instead silent on the causation/origins of the entailments/TRI/a semiotic state.

And to be absolutely clear there isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can produce semiotic processes, including transcription and translation. There isn't even any way to test the claim that unguided evolution could produce such a process. OTOH there is plenty of evidence for intelligent agencies producing semiotic processes... Joe

Alan Fox:

I am not aware of any convincing argument derived solely from logic rather than observation, experiment, measurement of reality that has been useful to the scientific community.

And that proves that the theory of evolution is not useful as it is not based on observation, experiment and measurement of reality. And Alan, it is because nucleotides REPRESENT amino acids that makes transcription and translation a semiotic process.

As I said, and others have said, clumping protein synthesis into a set of processes you call semiotic makes no sense.

Perhaps not to you, but then again nothing you say makes any sense. Joe

Just noticed: Reciprocating Bill is asking Upright Biped about "semiotic states". Now protein synthesis is a process, a dynamic series of events. Surely, just on that basis, any aspect of protein synthesis can't be described as a state, semiotic or not. So how does UB decide on what is in his semiotic set? Are they states, processes, events, things? Alan Fox

My statements on the issue are made solely from a material perspective.

Of course they should be, from my perspective they cannot be otherwise. Reality and imagination are orthogonal! I am not aware of any convincing argument derived solely from logic rather than observation, experiment, measurement of reality that has been useful to the scientific community.

Do you care to articulate any ambiguity in the terms of the argument, or shall you remain (perhaps forever) content to defend your position through unsupported beliefs?

As I said, and others have said, clumping protein synthesis into a set of processes you call semiotic makes no sense. It is not productive to rebut incoherence. This is why people have asked for clarification. This is why it is hard for you to keep people's attention. I am not defending anything. I am quite happy to admit, and have never implied otherwise, that I have no expertise except a little in biochemistry and I am quite content leave you to develop your argument into something that will get people's attention. You ain't there yet. Alan Fox

RB:

Specifically, tell us how semiotic theory itself constrains the answers to these questions [about the mechanisms/causes that result in the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state]. If, for example, you assert that agency is required to cause, result in, or give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, tell us why that flows from semiotic theory as you articulate it.

UB:

It doesn’t flow from semiotic theory per se, it flows from universal observation of the physical world.

Thank you for you candor. Just to be clear, I take this response as your assent that semiotic theory, as you have articulated it, itself does not constrain answers to my questions above, but is instead silent on the causation/origins of the entailments/TRI/a semiotic state. Reciprocating Bill

Upright BiPed,

950 + comments, and not even a shred of a refutation.

950+ comments and not even a shred of an attempt to make your word salad coherent. D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? Put up or shut up. onlooker

Alan Fox,

Indeed, I think that protein synthesis as a process has nothing to do with semiotics

Yes, but as you have repeatedly demonstrated, you make assertions which you then refuse to support with evidence and reason. This is a defensive mechanism which only serves to isolate your position from any inconvenient aspects of reality.

Pattee’s remark that “life is matter controlled by symbols” is merely anthropomorphism.

And here is another unsupported assertion. Not only is it unsupported, it is also uneducated. Pattee, as a Professor Emeritus of Physics, has studied the material constraints brought on by the presence of information in material systems for almost half a century. He was speaking specifically from a material perspective. You should attempt to educate yourself on these matters in place of making ill-concieved statements. Perhaps you could start here: The physics of symbols…Howard Pattee

I am not really making a claim about reality...

That is understandable (given your position) but then why do you involve yourself in conversations about reality, particularly when you’ve shown that you are uninterested in what that reality is?

Upright Biped makes an ill-defined assertion that semiosis, the study of signs and symbols in communication is a set of processes that can encompass biochemical reactions.

My statements on the issue are made solely from a material perspective. Positioning them as “ill-defined” is yet another assertion without support. Do you care to articulate any ambiguity in the terms of the argument, or shall you remain (perhaps forever) content to defend your position through unsupported beliefs? Upright BiPed

Alan Fox, Reality says that transcription and translation is a semiotic process BY DEFINITION. Ya see Alan the nucleotides code for, ie represent, an amino acid. Nucleotides do not become the amino acid. And blind and undirected processes just cannot produce a semiotic state. So you lose, again, as usual. As for how it impacts the theory of evolution, well it is just another aspect, of many, that the theory cannot explain. IOW it is just something else that proves the theory of evolution is a useless and worthless heuristic. Joe

Upright Biped Indeed, I think that protein synthesis as a process has nothing to do with semiotics. Pattee's remark that "life is matter controlled by symbols" is merely anthropomorphism. I am not really making a claim about reality, I am making a semantic observation. Upright Biped makes an ill-defined assertion that semiosis, the study of signs and symbols in communication is a set of processes that can encompass biochemical reactions. This stretches the concept of semiosis beyond any scientific usefulness. As mung points out, this does render UB's argument not very interesting to me, simply because it is, even if you allow for the sake of argument that in the context of his own definitions it might be right, scientifically useless. It is not a matter of refuting claims, it is a matter of observing that the attempt to put protein synthesis under an umbrella called "semiosis"is not even wrong. Further, allowing for the sake of argument that protein synthesis, or an aspect of it, could be called semiotic, then so what? We still have the hill to climb about whether calling something semiotic means it must have been designed. And then so what? How does being able to call something semiotic impinge on the theory of evolution, or indeed on the theory of ID if there were one? Alan Fox

Reciprocating Bill and his ilk are just upset because their position has nothing- no supporting evidence because they don't even have any objective criteria from which to make an inference. Joe

Has Keith presented an example of a self-replicating molecule where we can analyze its components and their functions?

He posted some symbols on a web page that he claims represent a self-replicating molecule, but they held no recorded information, so I would say no. Mung

Reciprocating Bill,

Please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Our universal experience is that semiotic states rise only (or are in operation only) from massive organization (i.e. living agents). There is no evidence to the contrary. I would start there.

Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Again, I refer to observation; inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial condition provides no examples of producing semiotic states. I would also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function, such as Darwinian evolution as it is documented to function in living things.

Specifically, tell us how semiotic theory itself constrains the answers to these questions. If, for example, you assert that agency is required to cause, result in, or give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, tell us why that flows from semiotic theory as you articulate it.

It doesn’t flow from semiotic theory per se, it flows from universal observation of the physical world.

Lastly, if your theory has nothing to say on causation – if the entire output of your efforts is “it will therefore require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state” yet semiotic theory is silent on mechanism/causation of the entailments/TRI/a semiotic state – what good is it?

Knowing what has to be accomplished in order to transfer recorded information is an advancement in knowledge if your subject of interest is dependent on the transfer of recorded information. - - - - - - - - And now I have some questions for you. Which one of the observations at the top of this page have you shown (or can show) to be false? Have you shown, or can you show an example of invalid logic in the conclusions stemming from the observations at the top of this page? Do you believe that the working scientists and researchers who are proponents of biosemiosis (even those who profess complete methodological materialism in their discipline) are incorrect in their assessment that the translation of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state? If so, how are they mistaken, and what would you say to them to correct their error(s)? Upright BiPed

UB, now that I have your attention, I'll ask yet again the following, the abandoned next step in our previous conversation: Please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Specifically, tell us how semiotic theory itself constrains the answers to these questions. If, for example, you assert that agency is required to cause, result in, or give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, tell us why that flows from semiotic theory as you articulate it. Lastly, if your theory has nothing to say on causation – if the entire output of your efforts is “it will therefore require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state” yet semiotic theory is silent on mechanism/causation of the entailments/TRI/a semiotic state – what good is it? Reciprocating Bill

950 + comments, and not even a shred of a refutation. Upright BiPed

“life and semiosis are coextensive” >>Professor Emeritus Thomas Sebeok, Indiana University “the basic unit of life is the sign, not the molecule” >> Professor Emeritus Jesper Hoffmeyer, Institute of Biology, University of Copenhagen “life is matter controlled by symbols” >> Professor Emeritus of Physics, Howard Pattee, New York State University “semiosis not only is a fact of life but is ‘the’ fact that allowed life to emerge from inanimate matter” >> Marcello Barbieri, Department of Morphology and Embryology, University of Ferrarra “I think the attempt to link semiosis to protein synthesis just fails utterly” >> Alan Fox :| Upright BiPed

Apparently cybernetics, semiotics, and biosemiotics didn’t exist prior to the formulation of Upright BiPed’s argument.

I told them the same thing. It doesn’t matter. Upright BiPed

Ahh, the clairvoyant Reciprocating Bill returns to UD with a 1400-word justification of himself. I will use significantly less words in response to it. Besides, his position has already been addressed too many times to count. He calls my use of the word entailment “muddled”. But what exactly was my use of the word entailment?

UB: There is a list of physical entailments of recorded information that can therefore be generalized and compiled without regard to the source of the information. In other words, the list is only about the physical entailments of the information, not its source. I am using the word “entailment” in the standard sense – to impose as a necessary result (Merriam-Webster). These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer.

Yep. First, I used the word, and then I gave the dictionary definition of that word, and then I used the dictionary definition in place of the word itself. (lol) This is an excellent indication of the formidable front put up at TSZ. What Bill fails to recognize is a distinction between the argument and the evidence within empiricism. One always has supremacy over the other. Instead (following his training perhaps) he wants to argue endlessly over the argument - and he’s become exasperated. He started his counter-attack by stating upfront that his claim “did not turn" on the evidence – and he was wrong. Upright BiPed

Has Keith presented an example of a self-replicating molecule where we can analyze its components and their functions? Upright BiPed

Alan, In your previous comment to me, you made an assertion and then did nothing whatsoever (and in zero) to back it up. Now you’ve come back to do the exactly the same thing (as in precisely the same thing). This is what an unsupported assertions looks like:

First assertion: “…as this is where his argument really falls apart for me. I think the attempt to link semiosis to protein synthesis just fails utterly”. Supporting evidence: Zero - - - - - - - - Second assertion: “…attempting to shoehorn protein synthesis into a set of processes that you call “semiotic” simply fails”. Supporting evidence: Zero

The only reasonable conclusion is that you have nothing to support your assertions. Upright BiPed

I think perhaps I've found the tool for creating self replication. http://selflanguage.org/ Mung

Apparently cybernetics, semiotics, and biosemiotics didn't exist prior to the formulation of Upright BiPed's argument. Mung

Mung:

Can someone post an example, based upon observation, in which the transfer of recorded information was not semiotic?

Sure, it happens with those self-replicating molecules. :) Hey, don't blame me. An impossible hypothetical scenario deserves a hypothetical molecule! Eric Anderson

Reciprocating Bill:

- Third is UB’s related claim that it is an empirical observation, and not simply a definition, that results in the claim that “the transfer of information is by necessity semiotic”:

Wow. I missed the rebuttal. Is that what I get for blinking at such a crucial moment? [Diary: Blinking is evidence of poor design.] Can someone post an example, based upon observation, in which the transfer of recorded information was not semiotic? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

Fourth is the Silence of the Bipeds on the question of the origins of the entailments/the TRI/semiotic states – which one might have assumed was the point of the entire empty exercise.

The Silence of the Detractors on the question of the origins of the entailments/the TRI/semiotic states was the point. Your failure to adequately identify and respond to the point demonstrates that the exercise was not empty. The OP still awaits a rebuttal of either the logic or the evidence. Mung

Alan Fox posts, but has nothing interesting to say about the argument other than it wasn’t what he thought it was.

I hope that doesn't mean he's no longer interested. We really need someone to take up the vacuum left by onlooker's forays into the thread. Mung

keiths:

Indeed, I am almost certain (from long experience) that Upright would like to avoid my questions by focusing instead on irrelevant details.

More irony. Irrelevant details like the ones set out in the OP? Irrelevant details like logic and empirical facts? The ones you assiduously avoid?

First let’s consider the simplest type of self-replication, in which a molecule S generates a copy of itself by reacting directly with its components (C0, C1, …Cn):

How do you know that's the simplest type of self-replication? What facts are you relying on? What theoretical studies can you refer us to? I say there is no such thing as a self-replicator, so there is no such thing as a "simplest type" of self-replicator.

1. Has recorded information been transferred from the original molecule S to its copy?

You haven't recorded any information, so you haven't copied or transferred any recorded information. Mung

Return of the Lying Troll aka onlooker onlooker:

Apparently I am doomed to disappointment.

At least you admit you are the cause of your own disappointment. onlooker:

Then you carefully refrain from quoting or answering my questions.

A lie. onlooker:

No, your questions are quite clearly an attempt at evasion. If really wanted people to understand your argument, you would answer their questions directly.

And you know it's a lie, and there's the proof. That makes you a liar, even under the "weak definition" preferred by you and your ilk over at TSZ. onlooker:

If really wanted people to understand your argument, you would answer their questions directly.

A non sequitur. So not only are you a demonstrable liar, you fail at elementary reasoning. onlooker:

You never even attempted to amend his summary as he repeatedly requested...

So? onlooker:

your behavior is indistinguishable from that of an intellectual coward

Your behavior is indistinguishable from that of a troll. A dishonest hypocritical troll, at that. Proud of yourself? Mung

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker at 905, Keith’s reformulation of my argument added extraneous issues to the argument which do exist in the original. This fact was explained immediately after he presented his reformulation. He promptly ignored that correction. He, like you, is desperate to revamp the argument because he cannot refute it.

You never even attempted to amend his summary as he repeatedly requested, just as you have never attempted to answer my questions in good faith. Whatever your actual motivations, your behavior is indistinguishable from that of an intellectual coward who knows he can't actually support his argument and so hides behind obfuscation and bluster. onlooker

Upright BiPed, At 909 you quote part of what I wrote at 904:

Onlooker at 904,

As already discussed, your attempt to distract from your repeated failure to answer direct questions about your incoherent “argument” by asking me questions is a transparent evasion tactic. Here’s the meat of my response, from my comment 864:

Then you carefully refrain from quoting or answering my questions. That doesn't exactly demonstrate intellectual integrity.

Firstly, the questions I asked you were intended to get you to engage in the answers to your questions, But you have no interest so.

No, your questions are quite clearly an attempt at evasion. If really wanted people to understand your argument, you would answer their questions directly.

Secondly, the "meat" of your response is (once again) all about redefining the definition of "materially arbitrary" in terms of a mechanism.

Incorrect. Here is the bit you cut:

Note the bolding in the previous quoted passage and in this one. See the difference? You switch from "inexorable law" to "physical law", which probably explains why you’ve avoided directly answering this question I’ve posed repeatedly: Does "law" mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? As near as I can tell, you’re claiming that because there are other conceivable relationships between nucleotide triplets and amino acids that could have existed, the one that does exist is not "reducible to physical law". That, combined with your repeated use of the word "inexorable", suggests that you do not consider stochastic mechanisms to be covered by the word "law". All that’s fine — your argument, your definitions. However, your words don’t change reality. In fact, every process in the transcription and translation cascade can be described without invoking any violations of chemistry or physics. If you are suggesting that the relationship we observe could not have arisen without some violation of chemistry and physics, you’ve got a lot more work to do to support such an assertion. In addition to all the other questions you’ve avoided answering, we’re back to one you ran away from at The Skeptical Zone: How does your argument, assuming you ever make it coherent, support ID?

I'm not trying to redefine anything -- I'm trying to get you to make your definitions coherent. You're using terms like "law", "inexorable law", and "physical law" in your argument. In order to understand your argument, those terms must be clearly defined.

As already stated, the mechanism of the system's origin does not change the material relationship between the representation and the effect. That relationship is materially arbitrary (and indeed must be so) regardless of whatever mechanism established it. This is not only a universal observation regarding information transfer, but is also a logical necessity. You cannot refute it.

I can't refute it because, like your overall argument, it incoherent. Clarifying your meaning by answering my simple questions would go a long way to making your word salad more sensible. I don't get the impression you're actually interested in doing that, though. Surprise me. onlooker

(Sorry, bad blockquote in previous.) Upright BiPed, I returned from traveling for work for a few days with high hopes that you will have finally answered my simple, direct questions. Apparently I am doomed to disappointment.

Onlooker in 903

UB: I have defined them. But you keep asking me to redefine them in terms of the mechanism which might establish the relationship. Onlooker: No, I am asking you to define them clearly and I have asked very direct and straightforward questions about your definition that you have consistently avoided answering. Here they are again: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

Firstly, you say want me to clearly define my use of the term "arbitrary", but time and time again you’ve been asked to articulate any ambiguity in the definition already given. You have failed to do so.

Incorrect. I read everything you wrote while you carefully evaded providing a coherent definition and came up with D3. I have asked you repeatedly if that definition corresponds to yours and, if not, exactly what essential characteristics it lacks. You spew hundreds of words without ever answering those simple questions. It's almost as though you are afraid of making your points clearly. After all, that could lead to them being refuted. So, let's try again. Here is what I understand you are attempting to communicate when you use the word "arbitrary": D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? onlooker

Upright BiPed, I returned from traveling for work for a few days with high hopes that you will have finally answered my simple, direct questions. Apparently I am doomed to disappointment.

Onlooker in 903

UB: I have defined them. But you keep asking me to redefine them in terms of the mechanism which might establish the relationship. Onlooker: No, I am asking you to define them clearly and I have asked very direct and straightforward questions about your definition that you have consistently avoided answering. Here they are again: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

Firstly, you say want me to clearly define my use of the term "arbitrary", but time and time again you’ve been asked to articulate any ambiguity in the definition already given. You have failed to do so.

Incorrect. I read everything you wrote while you carefully evaded providing a coherent definition and came up with D3. I have asked you repeatedly if that definition corresponds to yours and, if not, exactly what essential characteristics it lacks. You spew hundreds of words without ever answering those simple questions. It's almost as though you are afraid of making your points clearly. After all, that could lead to them being refuted. So, let's try again. Here is what I understand you are attempting to communicate when you use the word "arbitrary": D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

onlooker

Abstract In this paper we review and argue for the relevance of the concept of open-ended evolution in biological theory. Defining it as a process in which a set of chemical systems bring about an unlimited variety of equivalent systems that are not subject to any pre-determined upper bound of organizational complexity, we explain why only a special type of self-constructing, autonomous systems can actually implement it. We further argue that this capacity derives from the ‘dynamic decoupling’ (in its minimal or most basic sense: the phenotype–genotype decoupling) by means of which a radically new way of material organization (minimal living organization) is achieved, allowing for the long-term sustenance of systems whose individual-metabolic and collective-historical pathways become thereafter deeply intertwined. Enabling conditions for ‘open-ended evolution’

Mung

keiths:

We can talk about self-replicating molecules in the abstract, just as Upright talks about semiotic systems in the abstract.

Here's the difference. Semiotic systems exist. They OUGHT to be explained. (Yes, there's that horrid word again, showing your shallow metaphysics for all to see.) Self-replicating molecules do not exist except in the abstract. Therefore, they need no explanation unless it's an explanation for the existence of beings of reason. (Showing yet again your shallow metaphysics.) Yet you CHOOSE (Yes, there's that horrid word again, showing even more so your shallow metaphysics) to these things that exist only as a matter of reasoning and attempt to use them to explain something that does exist. Showing, for all to see, your poor science. Using the unknown and simply hypothetical to explain something that is actual. What should we take from this? Perhaps that bad metaphysics leads to bad science? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

IOW, it follows from UB’s premises that the existence of the sort of designer we all know he wishes to infer from “the material observations” is excluded at the outset by those very premises.

So? Mung

Alan Fox posts, but has nothing interesting to say about the argument other than it wasn't what he thought it was. Reciprocating Bill posts and claims his original objections were never addressed, even though they clearly were, as anyone reading this thread should well know. So, we're off to a rousing start. 941 posts and waiting. Mung

And keiths proves that he is a worthless coward that shouldn't be responded to:

Joe gets it right for once:

Prediction- Upright Biped’s response (930), will be seen by the TSZ ilk, as an evasion.

Indeed, I am almost certain (from long experience) that Upright would like to avoid my questions by focusing instead on irrelevant details. Fortunately, that’s not necessary. We can talk about self-replicating molecules in the abstract, just as Upright talks about semiotic systems in the abstract.

Nope, either you have a real-world example or you don't. And obvioulsy you don't so you lose. Obvioulsy keiths has no idea what science is nor how it operates. BTW keiths, all YOU ever do is focus on irrelevant tangents. And you still don't understand nested hierarchies... Joe

Great RB is back but still has nothing to say. Sure he posted a lot of words but he has never given any indication that he understands the argument and seems to want to obfuscate rather than engage. And in the end if your position had any evidence, any at all, to support its claims then you would just post them and UB would be refuted. So it is very telling that you chose the tactic that you are using. Joe

I see that Uncommon Descent has restored my original posting privileges. Because Upright Biped has repeatedly mischaracterized the import of our previous discussions at TSZ, and in the spirit of the recent cross conversation between UD and TSZ, let me take this opportunity to post the a reply I recently posted to him at TSZ. I've removed links to avert this post being ensnared in a spam filter; you may consult my original post at TSZ if interested in following those links. Upright challenged Alan to link to someone – anyone – who has identified logical problems or ambiguities in his argument. He claims that there have been no such objections. Drawing upon previous TSZ threads spanning April 15 to July 20 I will here summarize a few of mine. None of the following objections and observations have been successfully rebutted, in my judgment. - First is UB’s muddled use of “entailment.” During the course of his participation at TSZ UB pivoted from one use of “entailment” to another, an equivocation that exemplified what is muddled about his understanding of entailment and implication, and indeed what is muddled about his entire presentation. On April 18, at the outset of this discussion, I anticipated that ambiguity: UB

Demonstrating a system that satisfies the entailments (physical consequences) of recorded information, also confirms the existence of a semiotic state.”

RB:

It simply would not follow from an observation that all known instances of semiotic information transfer (all of which are instances of human symbolic or representational communication) exhibit your “material entailments” that all systems exhibiting these “entailments” are necessarily semiotic, convey semiotic information, or have semiotic origins. Unless, of course, you are simply defining “semiotic” as “exhibits these material entailments,” in which case to assert that “a system that satisfies the entailments (physical consequences) of recorded information, also confirms the existence of a semiotic state” is a tautology that gets you no further than did proposing your definition.

First notice that Biped characterizes his “entailments” as “physical consequences of recorded information.” He doesn’t identify them as “necessary and sufficient conditions for the transfer of recorded information,” as he does following his pivot. There is no reading of “physical consequences of” that yields “necessary and sufficient conditions for” without acknowledging severe ambiguity in the former. When he employs “entailment” in this sense of “physical consequences,” his claim that observing such consequences “successfully confirms a semiotic state” commits the error of implication that was subsequently discussed at length on that thread. Nor was this an isolated mispeaking. I later showed that, in his missives to Larry Moran and to Lizzie, UB repeatedly employed similarly logically flawed reasoning in which his later revised, “post pivot” use of “entailment” is nowhere to be found. Notice also that, in the above quoted passage, I anticipated his later pivot at the outset of our discussion. On April 26 I similarly remarked:

It only follows that “Demonstrating a system that satisfies the entailments (physical consequences) of recorded information, also confirms the existence of a semiotic state” if you define a “semiotic state” as “a system that demonstrates these ‘entailments.’” In which case this “confirmation” is tautological.

This again anticipates Biped’s later pivot to using “entailment” not in the sense of entailments that are “physical consequences”, but in the sense that if a phenomenon has occurred, observation of necessary and sufficient conditions for the phenomenon is “entailed.” This is a more or less useless form of “entailment” that, as deployed by Biped in this discussion, assumes its conclusions, almost exactly as I anticipated in the quoted passages above. I identified that uselessness at the moment of his pivot: Biped:

Bill, if a specific thing only exist under specific conditions, then does it existence entail the existence of those specific conditions?

RB:

Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment.” Not a very useful entailment, however, as you must already know that a phenomenon has both necessary and sufficient conditions, and what they are, before reaching your conclusion that those conditions obtained.

I repeated the latter observation perhaps six or seven times (more?), but UB never responded to that objection in any way, and later pointedly quote-mined my response in a way that removed that objection. It remains wholly unrebutted. Rather, Biped seemed to think that his completion of a pivot from a use of “entailment” in a sense that yields reasoning beset by a fatal logical flaw to a sense that is useless because it assumes its conclusions was a decisive moment in the discussion, and rescued him from the observation that he really doesn’t understand how to use entailment in a scientific context. He also seems to think that my observation of one set of intractable problems prior to his pivot and a second set of problems post-pivot represented a “concession” on my part. Neither was the case. - Second is Biped’s unwillingness, and apparently his inability, to state what “a semiotic state” entails that “the transfer of information” does not. That question was posed to him perhaps 20 times. He offered only non-responsive replies (e.g. restating his definitions of “a semiotic state” and “the TRI” without responding to the question). - Third is UB’s related claim that it is an empirical observation, and not simply a definition, that results in the claim that “the transfer of information is by necessity semiotic”: UB:

I make the claim that recorded information is – by necessity – semiotic. I make that claim squarely upon material observation, and I challenge you or anyone else to demonstrate otherwise.

RB:

Help me to understand this. What does “semiotic” entail that “the transfer of recorded information” does not? Absent a response, you cannot claim to discern, even in principle, in what way an instance of “the transfer of recorded information” that is not also a semiotic state would differ from one that is. To justify your claim that this is an “material observation,” you need to specify that difference.

Yet another objection that remains wholly unrebutted. - Fourth is the Silence of the Bipeds on the question of the origins of the entailments/the TRI/semiotic states – which one might have assumed was the point of the entire empty exercise. UB:

Good grief. The argument doesn’t claim the entailments cause information transfer; it says they are the necessary material conditions of information transfer.

Never mind the question of how something can be “the necessary material conditions for” something else without being regarded as the cause of that something else (more muddle). I responded:

So, then, the entailments do not cause the transfer of recorded information/a semiotic state. They are the necessary and sufficient material conditions of (for?) the transfer of recorded information/a semiotic state, yet they are not the cause of the TRI/a semiotic state… also unanswered is, “what are the causes of the four entailments?” The answer cannot be “the transfer of recorded information/a semiotic state,” as your italicized use of “consequence” is not to be construed as a claim that the entailments arise as a consequence of TRI/a semiotic state… Semiotic theory is therefore silent on the causes of the phenomenon it purports to explain – the events observed in the transcription of DNA into proteins. Nothing in the claimed relationship between the entailments and the TRI/a semiotic state speaks to causation. Because silent on the causes of the phenomenon it labors so mightily to frame, it is perforce also silent on competing causal claims such as “the events observed in the transcription of DNA into proteins arose through (because of) natural unguided processes” (replication and selection, for example).

And, of course, later: RB:

Upright Biped, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Lastly, if your theory has nothing to say on causation – if the entire output of your efforts is “it will therefore require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state” yet semiotic theory is silent on mechanism/causation – what good is it?

- And last, for now, I would like to recall the first comment I made on these threads: UB:

1) In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?)

RB:

Seems to me his 1) excludes, by definition, a non-material designer, which would certainly represent and transfer information by non-material means.

IOW, it follows from UB’s premises that the existence of the sort of designer we all know he wishes to infer from “the material observations” is excluded at the outset by those very premises. - Reciprocating Bill Reciprocating Bill

Joe @936: Yeah, the ligase ribozyme is sometimes thrown out as an example, driven partly by the paper by Paul and Joyce, A self-replicating ligase ribozyme. Unfortunately, despite some clever engineering on their part, it is not an example of a self-replicating molecule. They did some good work, but the primary takeaway from their paper is how far they were from actually having a long-term sustainable self-replicating system. Never mind the fact that they weren't using just a single molecule. So, given the importance of the self-replicating molecule to the materialist creation story, I continue to wait for this entity to rear its head. Gone missing through the mists of time, no doubt, with the unicorn . . . Eric Anderson

Self-replicating molecule-> ligase ribozyme, but that is two RNAs, one for a template and one for a catalyst. One solution could be to have say one RNA that keeps collecting free nucleotides until it breaks. Then there are two that keep collecting nucleotides until they break. Then out of all these pieces a catalyst is born. Joe

The theory of evolution is meaningless without saying HOW living organisms arose because HOW they arose directly impacts HOW they evolve. As in if living organisms were designed then they were designed to evolve/ evolved by design. That you and people like you refuse to grasp that simple fact says quite a bit about your agenda. That aside, no one is shoehorning anything. Transcription and translation "is what it is" and it is a semiotic process- by DEFINITION. But then again you and your ilk seem to have quite the difficulty with the definitions of words. BTW exactly what useful insights has your position ever led to? Please be specific. Joe

Upright Biped ask?

Is this a fault? Why should an argument that specifically describes the material conditions for recorded information be forced to address TOE?

If you are confirming that your argument does indeed address the OOL rather than the ToE, then fine. I do confess to not really taking your argument seriously, among other reasons, because it did not address the ToE. Now you appear to be saying this is indeed the case. I have said before and will say again, if you think you have an argument that will lead to useful insights into the world we live in, you owe it to yourself and others to set your stall out where it will get noticed. Convincing some random commenter on some obscure internet site is not likely to achieve much.

I spent two months at TSZ defending my argument, and in that time you presented nothing. However, as you have now demonstrated, you are completely capable of posting your rebuttal here, where I will address anything you have to say.

Well, I'm not sure those who tried to get you to clarify your argument sufficiently so that they could discuss it would see it like that. My problems with your argument are that it does not have anything to do with the theory of evolution (which you seem to confirm) and that attempting to shoehorn protein synthesis into a set of processes that you call "semiotic" simply fails. Alan Fox

Can anyone point me to an example of a self-replicating molecule?

I think there are some designed ones out there. :) But really. Isn't it remarkable how the supposedly skeptical, who denigrate ID for it's missing designer, are so willing to believe in non-existent things for which there is no evidence to avoid the facts and logic of the OP? Mung

Mung @ 927 (actually this is for keiths): Can anyone point me to an example of a self-replicating molecule? I'm not arguing that such a thing is or isn't irreducibly complex at this point until I get the chance to look at the thing (nor am I trying to put any words in UB's mouth). Just trying to learn whether there is such a thing. I've been asking for years and so far no-one has been able to point me to a self-replicating molecule yet, so I'm very suspicious that this very key aspect of the whole materialist creation story is unfounded. [And to avoid wasting time back and forth, no, DNA is not self-replicating; no, a crystal is not self-replicating. Is there another example of a molecule that is?] Eric Anderson

Prediction- Upright Biped's response (930), will be seen by the TSZ ilk, as an evasion. Joe

Keith wants Mung to ask me a) if a self-replicating molecule can transfer information, and b) what the representation and protocol are in this self-replicating molecule. He also wants to know if they would therefore comprise an irreducible complex system. As for his last question, I have already stated that representations and protocols are irreducible complex. As for his first two questions, he is specifically asking me to identify objects within a system which he does not identify. This puts me in the rather awkward position of identifying objects within whatever system I might imagine, or even worse, identifying objects within whatever system he might imagine. Obviously his questions are pointless. So if he will provide an example of a self-replicating molecule, then I will analyze it and provide an answer. Upright BiPed

keiths:

Why don’t you ask Upright 1) whether self-replicating molecules can transfer “recorded information”;

What self-replicating molecules, please be specific and what recorded information do they contain, again please be specific? The safe bet is that keiths won't answer the questions... Joe

Can anyone tell us what self-replicating molecules keiths is talking about along what information they contain? Also does anyone have a clue as to why RB cannot stay focused on the topic at hand rather then trying to jump to the end? Joe

keiths:

Upright is not foolish enough to claim that self-replicating molecules are irreducibly complex, as far as I know.

I guess that means you've managed to defeat a straw-man. Grats.

Second, it’s silly to claim that self-replicating molecules cannot transfer recorded information...

Then I'm going to bet that Upright BiPed didn't make that argument and you've managed to defeat yet another straw-man. Grats again. Mung

Alan Fox:

Seems I’m currently enjoying moderation-free commenter status at Uncommon Descent!

I hope they don't strip you of your admin status and shun you over at TSZ for not being among the "banned from UD." I trust you'll exhibit enough TSZ-like behavior though to stay in their good graces. Do you really want a serious discussion, or are you going pull another 'onlooker' on us? Let me offer my opinion of why so few of us will come over there and post. It's because none of you (or too few of you) are serious. If you (pl.) were interested in serious debate there would be no reason to be banned here from UD. You can do that here. If you choose. So. The recording of information in a material system. Exhibit A. Computers. Do you dispute that a computer is a material system? Do you dispute that it is possible to record information for storage and retrieval on a modern computer? If the above two items are not in dispute, are you willing to discuss what the requirements are for that to take place? What is it, down on the really nitty gritty level, that makes computers amenable to information storage and retrieval? Or do you want to go back to what did we use before computers? Mung

RB:

UB’s “theory” as set out above remains silent on the cause of the phenomena it purports to explain.

So? I can find no mention of the words 'cause' or 'explain' in the OP. So maybe it's not mentioned on purpose.

If “the conclusion is only that some mechanism is required that can create a semiotic state,” yet semiotic theory is silent on causal mechanisms, neither providing or constraining hypotheses regarding causal mechanism, what good is it?

Why are you mistaking the title of a post for the substance of a theory, when that title isn't even the one used here at UD? And I don't see Upright BiPed making appeals to "semiotic theory" anywhere in this thread. It all seems to be originating from TSZ.

After all, we already know that the cause of a a given phenomenon must be capable of causing that phenomenon.

You claim to know this, but it seems to be often overlooked over there at TSZ. In fact, I often see appeals to Ockham's Razor in place of an adequate cause. That seems to be quite popular over there. So, your post appears to be one huge straw-man. Can you explain why Upright BiPed should defend arguments he hasn't made? Can you deal with the OP, or not? Mung

Frankly, your whole comment seems rather haphazardly thrown together, as if it were a placemat for something else – something of substance perhaps.

made me laugh =p Mung

Alan Fox, You have been posting on the Musing of Science blog that my argument was “incoherent”, and that you found it “impossible to parse”, and that I would not “clarify it”. Time and time again, I asked you to support your assertions by stating either a) any ambiguity in the terms, b) demonstrate that the conclusions do not follow from the premises, or c) that the premises are untrue. You refused at each opportunity. Then on November 7th you stated that the moderation policy at UD prevented you from directly engaging, but yet today, you found it possible to post a link to TSZ. Apparently you were mistaken about the moderation policy and perhaps only discovered your mistake when just happen to be standing near an unused UD comment box, and voila. There is therefore no reason that you cannot post your comments here where the argument is. I did however follow your link to TSZ to find the rebuttal you seem to be alluding with your derogatory comments. What I found was something less than a rebuttal. Here is a breakdown of your comment:

My personal view is that there are a couple of basic faults with UB’s argument. It appears to address origin-of-life (OOL) theories rather than the theory of evolution (ToE) and it is a default argument; “OOL fails, therefore Intelligent Design”.

Is this a fault? Why should an argument that specifically describes the material conditions for recorded information be forced to address TOE? Have you joined a group that believes that ToE addresses OoL issues? And as for addressing the failures of current OoL theories, I fail to see the problem you have here as well. Are not incomplete theories (and those that fail) subject to evaluation? Frankly, your whole comment seems rather haphazardly thrown together, as if it were a placemat for something else – something of substance perhaps. Allow me to address your comment about being a “default” theory. The argument I’ve made follows a line of logical necessities which present themselves from the general premise that recorded information transfer must have a material basis in a material universe, and that 'material basis' must be observable. You can defeat this line of logical necessities by demonstrating that the conclusions do not follow from the premises, or that the premises are untrue. You cannot defeat it by suggesting that it is a default theory. Your summary “OoL fails, therefore Intelligent Design” is completely meaningless in an empirical investigation. - - - - - - - - - - You then wrap up your critique at TSZ with a final thought:

It is a shame that UB seemed to lose interest in defending his argument before we got to the meat of the biochemistry, where I have a little knowledge, now outdated, as this is where his argument really falls apart for me. I think the attempt to link semiosis to protein synthesis just fails utterly.

Is that it, Alan? Do you really not recognize that you simply made an assertion and then followed it with absolutely nothing? I spent two months at TSZ defending my argument, and in that time you presented nothing. However, as you have now demonstrated, you are completely capable of posting your rebuttal here, where I will address anything you have to say. I look forward to you finally attempting to support your assertions. It will be a welcome change. Upright BiPed

Alan Fox:

My personal view is that there are a couple of basic faults with UB’s argument. It appears to address origin-of-life (OOL) theories rather than than the theory of evolution (ToE)

So? This means you can't appeal to the Darwinian mechanism to explain the elements that are required for Darwinian evolution to occur. Why do you think that's a fault with his argument? By fault, can we assume you mean a factual or logical deficiency? If so, what is the fault? Is it factual, or logical? Do you dispute that there is some minimal basic system required for Darwinism to take place? Do you dispute that such a system must be informational in nature? Mung

Alan Fox:

My personal view is that there are a couple of basic faults with UB’s argument. It appears to address origin-of-life (OOL) theories rather than than the theory of evolution (ToE) and it is a default argument; “OOL fails, therefore Intelligent Design”.

keiths:

He is still afraid of making an outright claim of design, but the implication is clear.

Why don't you two spend some time together coming up with a coherent rebuttal? Mung

link Alan Fox

Mung,

They ought to be stripped of the title of “skeptical.”

Elizabeth Liddle once said that she had never heard an ID argument of any merit, and that there was no case for ID that could not also be explained as the product of Darwinian evolution. I then told her of one, and after a time - when I was certain that she ‘got it’ - I eventually asked her if she would retract her claims. She refused. Later still, she eventually admitted that Darwinian evolution could not, indeed, be responsible for the organization which was the ‘first replicator’. So once again, I eventually asked her to retract her claims. Again, she refused, even though she had to concede she could not write a simulation which would generate information from scratch. She then started the Skeptical Zone with a thread based dircetly on our conversation, and has since launched three or four more threads centered (in one way or another) around that same conversation. So I joined one of those conversations, and stayed for a little over two months. The thrust of the counter-argument there was to two-fold; a) to piddle around over the word “entailment”, and b) to revamp the argument (lol) and equivocate on the logical operators used in the revamp (i.e. A->B, B->A). The result of that engagement was their eventual complete concession on both counts. And so (having won those concessions) I left. But within that thread, I asked three questions which Dr Liddle offered answers for:

UB: 1. In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?) 2. If 1 is true, then is it even conceivably possible to transfer that information without a second arrangement of matter (a protocol) to establish the relationship between representation and what it represents? (how could such a relationship be established in any other way?) 3. If 1 and 2 are true, then is it even conceivably possible to functionally transfer information without the irreducibly complex system of these two arrangements of matter (representations and protocols) in operation?

And what was Dr Liddle’s response?

Dr Liddle: 1. No 2. No 3. I don’t see why such an arrangement should be “irreducibly complex”.

So for Dr Liddle, just because she is given an ID argument based on sound logic and valid premises (in which she concedes she cannot refute) it is not a sign that the argument has any merit. And just because there are necessary conditions that Darwinian evolution cannot be responsible for, does not mean that ID can offer an argument that Darwinian evolution cannot also be responsible for. And just because there are two arrangements of matter in which it would be inconceivable to transfer information (without them working in tandem), doesn’t mean that both are needed in order to transfer information. Dr Liddle’s denial of material evidence is what powers The Skeptical Zone. Her hypocrisy-laden brand management: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken." is the high intellectual wall she needs to hide behind as she tosses her disciplinary responsibilities on the ground. Very politely she, the scientist, dismisses the material evidence. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ah well. Whether they would be stripped the title “Skeptical” or not, they’ve done nothing to distinguish themselves as capable of using it in any rationale manner.

Or maybe they just revel in the irony of it all.

Perhaps. Upright BiPed

They ought to be stripped of the title of "skeptical." Or maybe they just revel in the irony of it all. Mung

Mung, the truly astonishing thing is that for the illustrious members of the peanut gallery at TSZ, this silly front put up by Onlooker actually passes for a valid engagement of the argument. Wallowing in "arbitrary" is their sufficient response to material evidence. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed, Your refusal to modify your argument according to our arbitrary requirements and failure to reformulate it to make it acceptable to us just goes to prove that you are not really interested in defending it. Now, admit that you lack the intellectual integrity to do so and drop any claims to have an argument supporting ID. Any other response is dishonest. So there. Mung

Well, onlooker, looks like you're out of excuses. long ago Mung

Opps. correction...#910 Onlooker at 905, Keith’s reformulation of my argument added extraneous issues to the argument which do [NOT] exist in the original. This fact was explained immediately after he presented his reformulation. He promptly ignored that correction. He, like you, is desperate to revamp the argument because he cannot refute it. Upright BiPed

Onlooker, In comment #899 I posted a dozen or so examples from the 2,370,000 instances of the word "arbitrary" being used in the scholarly papers searchable within the Google Scholar database. When you come back to pepper me with more insults and ignore my requests that you finally articulate the ambiguity you insist is in my argument, will you please spend a few words explaining how all these people are able to communicate to each other using that word? I'd like you to be as specific as possible. I've read a few of those usages of the word, and will be happy to test whatever reason you give. Otherwise, please just articulate the ambiguity in my argument which you claim is there. Then you'll be able to provide that big refutation you've been promising. Upright BiPed

On October 8th:

UB: Your entire involvement here has been an attempt to massage over the unambiguous definitions given in the argument, in the hopes that you can make them malleable for a counter-argument. This has already been discussed here and here among other places. Unfortunately for you, your strategy has been transparent for the entire duration of your stay. You are now left with nothing but to return here and use the repetition of your attempts as an opportunity to sling more insults. It’s all you have left. As I have already pointed out, it’s a terrible way to have to protect your worldview.

Earlier today, Nov 5th:

Onlooker: ... your attempt to distract from your repeated failure to answer ... your incoherent “argument” ... a transparent evasion tactic ... None of your squirming ... you have utterly failed ... admit that you lack the intellectual integrity ... Any other response is dishonest.

Onlooker, Can you substantiate your claims? Can you articulate the ambiguity you insist is there? If not, then why not? :) Upright BiPed

onlooker, your continued presence here doesn't mean you've addressed even a single aspect of the argument in the OP. Until you do so it stands as unrefuted. Heck, it still stands as unaddressed. onlooker:

D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

Define "connected by a direct physical mechanism." Are the bases in a strand of DNA connected by a direct physical mechanism? Are the amino acids in a protein connected by a direct physical mechanism? Does it follow that their ordering is non-arbitray?

If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

It lacks any connection to reality. It's arbitrary. Troll Mung

Onlooker at 905, Keith’s reformulation of my argument added extraneous issues to the argument which do exist in the original. This fact was explained immediately after he presented his reformulation. He promptly ignored that correction. He, like you, is desperate to revamp the argument because he cannot refute it. Upright BiPed

Onlooker at 904,

As already discussed, your attempt to distract from your repeated failure to answer direct questions about your incoherent “argument” by asking me questions is a transparent evasion tactic. Here’s the meat of my response, from my comment 864:

Firstly, the questions I asked you were intended to get you to engage in the answers to your questions, But you have no interest so. Secondly, the “meat” of your response is (once again) all about redefining the definition of “materially arbitrary” in terms of a mechanism. As already stated, the mechanism of the system’s origin does not change the material relationship between the representation and the effect. That relationship is materially arbitrary (and indeed must be so) regardless of whatever mechanism established it. This is not only a universal observation regarding information transfer, but is also a logical necessity. You cannot refute it. Upright BiPed

Onlooker in 903

UB: I have defined them. But you keep asking me to redefine them in terms of the mechanism which might establish the relationship. Onlooker: No, I am asking you to define them clearly and I have asked very direct and straightforward questions about your definition that you have consistently avoided answering. Here they are again: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

Firstly, you say want me to clearly define my use of the term “arbitrary”, but time and time again you've been asked to articulate any ambiguity in the definition already given. You have failed to do so. Secondly, I have said that you keep trying to get me to restate the definition in terms of the mechanism of its origin. You reply “no” you are not doing so, then in the space of a single sentence, you turn around and ask me again about the mechanism of its origin. It’s dishonest lunacy. Bottom line: You simply cannot articulate an ambiguity in the definition given. Your claim is false. Upright BiPed

Upright Biped's argument supports ID because it meets the design criteria, part of which is the total failure of necessity and chance to account for transcription and translation. And I am 100% positive that is what has the evos frothing at the mouth- the total inability of their position to explain what we observe. Joe

That onlooker references keiths, of all people, says it is totally clueless... Joe

After over 900 comments it seems appropriate to repost this from keiths at The Skeptical Zone:

Every time I summarized your argument, I a) asked you whether my summary was accurate, and b) invited you to amend my summary if it was not. You refused each time, even when others (who also found your prose impenetrable) repeatedly asked you to do so. Why is that? If your argument is as strong as you claim, why do you work so hard to prevent your audience from understanding it? When I have a good idea, I actually want other people to understand it. When they ask questions, I answer them. If I see that they misunderstand me, I clarify things. Why wouldn’t I? Why would I try to hide my good idea? You, on the other hand, seem ashamed of your argument and afraid of what might happen if you stated it clearly and explicitly. Instead of clarifying, you obfuscate. Instead of answering questions straightforwardly, you evade them. You complain that others are misrepresenting your position, but when they ask you for correction, you refuse to give it. Then you declare victory, saying that no one has defeated your argument! For you, the entire exercise seems to be more about saving face than it is about communicating your ideas. In fact, you appear to be deliberately avoiding communication precisely in order to save face. Why should anyone take your argument seriously if you are so ashamed of it? Why are you afraid to communicate it in a way that your audience will actually understand?

Either answer the outstanding questions I've raised here and those you ran away from at TSZ or simply admit that you lack the intellectual integrity to do so and drop any claims to have an argument supporting ID. Any other response is dishonest. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Your 873 appears to be an attempt to take this discussion into an infinite loop. I responded to all of that in 864 …

You did? Let’s take a look, shall we? Where is your answer to this question:

UB: Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid?

I do not see your answer anywhere. Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid, or not?

As already discussed, your attempt to distract from your repeated failure to answer direct questions about your incoherent "argument" by asking me questions is a transparent evasion tactic. Here's the meat of my response, from my comment 864:

Now if all of that is true (and it is), then it is a perfectly valid empirical statement to say that the “relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)”.

Note the bolding in the previous quoted passage and in this one. See the difference? You switch from “inexorable law” to “physical law”, which probably explains why you’ve avoided directly answering this question I’ve posed repeatedly: Does “law” mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? As near as I can tell, you’re claiming that because there are other conceivable relationships between nucleotide triplets and amino acids that could have existed, the one that does exist is not “reducible to physical law”. That, combined with your repeated use of the word “inexorable”, suggests that you do not consider stochastic mechanisms to be covered by the word “law”. All that’s fine — your argument, your definitions. However, your words don’t change reality. In fact, every process in the transcription and translation cascade can be described without invoking any violations of chemistry or physics. If you are suggesting that the relationship we observe could not have arisen without some violation of chemistry and physics, you’ve got a lot more work to do to support such an assertion. In addition to all the other questions you’ve avoided answering, we’re back to one you ran away from at The Skeptical Zone: How does your argument, assuming you ever make it coherent, support ID?

None of your squirming gets around the clear fact that you have utterly failed to address any of these issues. Your "argument" doesn't exist. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

I am asking you to define your terms.

And I have defined them. But you keep asking me to redefine them in terms of the mechanism which might establish the relationship.

No, I am asking you to define them clearly and I have asked very direct and straightforward questions about your definition that you have consistently avoided answering. Here they are again: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? onlooker

As Upright BiPed has aptly pointed out, to get from pond scum to us requires recorded information. Information recorded in a material system. Darwinists have no theory The best they can do is pretend to not comprehend the facts, while at the same time offering no alternative. And then they appear to be befuddled by our failure to be convinced by their lack of response, blaming us, rather than themselves. Mung

Just as, after well past a month, no 6,000 word essay on the warrant for the blind watchmaker thesis, from pond salts and scum to us. KF kairosfocus

You're implying that onlooker knows how to use Google or some other search engine and actually has some desire to learn what arbitrary means. I think onlooker knows full well what the word means, so feels no need to explore the matter further. onlooker's actions here at UD are pure posturing. 900 posts and still no rebuttal. Mung

A quick search on Google Scholar for the incomprehensible term “arbitrary”. I received 2,370,000 responses. Here are some examples:

…additive constant in U is not physically arbitrary since both… …evolution equation under arbitrary macrodeformation is derived… …contain in vacuum four physically arbitrary functions moving… ...then extends the proof to arbitrary states of this system… …VMS are materially arbitrary with respect to their referents… …this method of comparing intensities is physically arbitrary, since… …phase p(t) of an arbitrary ultrashort pulse with no physical… …subjecting them to four arbitrary conditions, proceeds to find... …displacement implies an arbitrary shape determined by the… …scattering by boundaries of arbitrary shape, size, and orientation… …mechanical response along arbitrary deformation paths… …generators with arbitrary expansion can be constructed… …pore bodies in real porous media must remain arbitrary… …concurrence for an arbitrary pure state of two qubits… …protons incident on a target of arbitrary ionization level… …particles of arbitrary spin in an electromagnetic field…

Quite obviously, the world of science is in complete disarray. What could all of these people be talking about, using this entirely unusable English word “arbitrary”. Right? Upright BiPed

onlooker believes that to pretend to not understand the argument is to have refuted it. Mung

UB from #826 on October 8th

Onlooker, You are now left with nothing but to return here and use the repetition of your attempts as an opportunity to sling more insults. It’s all you have left. As I have already pointed out, it’s a terrible way to have to protect your worldview.

Onlooker from earlier today, November 1st:

...evasion is your only option...someone terrified of risking being proven wrong...refusing to engage in good faith and hoping that your ridiculous responses...you’d prefer to simply run away...looking like a cowardly fool...You are demonstrating intellectual dishonesty coupled with a complete lack of integrity. There is no honor in your actions...

Are you ready to lay out your long-since-promised refutation of the argument yet? Upright BiPed

Yes, Upright BiPed, you are obviously trying to create an endless loop. Mung

Based on the definitions of arbitrary offered in 889, everyone can see that onlooker is acting in an arbitrary manner. Joe

methinks onlooker is on a crusade to get banned from UD. That's the only explanation I can come up with for the observed behavior. There's certainly no indication of any true interest in debate or moving things forward. Mung

Onlooker at 886,

Your 873 appears to be an attempt to take this discussion into an infinite loop. I responded to all of that in 864 …

You did? Let’s take a look, shall we? Where is your answer to this question:

UB: Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid?

I do not see your answer anywhere. Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid, or not? So where is your answer to this question:

UB: Does it require something else (other than the nucleic triplet and the amino acid) to make the material connection between the two?

I do not see your answer to this question. Does the relationship require something more than the nucleic triplet and amino acid, or not? So where is your answer to this question:

UB: If so, then is this material connection a matter of an inexorable law (existing between the triplet and the amino acid) or is it established by this something else (i.e. the aaRS) which operates within the system?

I do not see where you addressed this question. So is the relationship between the nucleic triplet and the amino acid established by an inexorable law between them, or is it established by the aaRS operating within the system? So where is your answer to this question:

UB: If it is true that the material connection is established locally by the aaRS, and not globally by an inexorable law (between the triplet and the amino acid) then isn’t the relationship between the two “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law?”

Frankly, I don’t see that you answered this question at all. Is the relationship established locally by the aaRS or globally by an inexorable law? Is the relationship “context specific” within the system, and “not a matter of an inexorable law” between the triplet and the amino acid, or not? So where is your answer to this question:

UB: If it is then true that the relationship between the two is “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law”, is it also true that no physical laws are broken in establishing this relationship?

And here once again, I see no answer at all. So where are all these answers that you claim to have given? Where is your attempt in trying to understand? Why did you explicitly ignore any and all examples used to illustrate the terms? Why do you continually ask questions, and then refuse to engage in the answers? Here is what I think; I think hell will freeze over before you’ll engage in these questions. I am certain of it. Upright BiPed

Onlooker at 887,

I am asking you to define your terms.

And I have defined them. But you keep asking me to redefine them in terms of the mechanism which might establish the relationship. In response, I have repeatedly told you that the quality of the relationship between the two objects in question exist as it does regardless of the mechanism which establishes that relationship. SPecifically, I stated:

The issue of the representation being materially arbitrary to its effect does not address any proposed mechanism which may establish that relationship within a system. It does not address (in one way or another) whether a potential mechanism is purely law-based, or contains stochastic or other non-deterministic elements, or otherwise – it simply acknowledges that the relationship between the representation and its effect is not a matter of inexorable law. You cannot derive one from the other (without the system).

Moreover, it is the mechanism that is in question, so to place an answer to that question within the observations themselves is tantamount to assuming your conclusion, and is therefore a completely avoidable logical fallacy. You have thus far refused to acknowledge these very simple observations. Upright BiPed

Onlooker at 885,

I’ll spell it out for you. Your use of the term “materially arbitrary” is no different than if you invented the word “splangilous” and used that to denote whatever concept it is that you’re trying so unsuccessfully to communicate. If you want to use that word, fine. If you want to claim that some object or pattern is splangilous, fine.

You are entirely correct.

That doesn’t provide allow any outside observer to determine what you mean by it.

Unless they ask. And if they did, I would tell them that the relationship (in question) within the system is “spangilous”, and spangilous means that it is “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law”, at which point they would know that the relationship between a) the representation, and b) the effect it evokes within the system, is “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law”. That’s what happened 70 days and a mere 878 comments ago. Upright BiPed

onlooker is such a misnomer. Mung

Hey- look what I found!: arbitrary:

1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law [the manner of punishment is arbitrary] 2 a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority [an arbitrary government] b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power [protection from arbitrary arrest and detention] 3 a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something [an arbitrary standard] [take any arbitrary positive number] [arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee] b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will [when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary— Nehemiah Jordan]

Anyone with at least a first grade education should be able to take those definitions, plug them into the sentence, and figure out which definition to use. So either evos are totally ignorant or just dishonest jerks. Joe

onlooker, The only people who say UB has NOT made an argument that supports ID are the ignorant evoTARDs over on TSZ and yourself, a proven liar and loser. Objective onlookers understand that... Joe

Upright BiPed,

Why do you repeatedlty ask about the nature of the mechanism… given that you’ve been told a number of times that the observations do not address the nature of the mechanism.

I am asking you to define your terms. The fact that you refuse to do so shows that you have no confidence in your argument. Why, then, should anyone else take it seriously? onlooker

Upright BiPed, Your 873 appears to be an attempt to take this discussion into an infinite loop. I responded to all of that in 864 and asked a number of questions to try to clarify your meaning, all of which you've ignored. You are repeating the behavior you exhibited when Elizabeth Liddle was posting here -- refusing to engage in good faith and hoping that your ridiculous responses would lead to her becoming frustrated and leaving so that you could claim some kind of victory. No doubt you'd prefer to simply run away from the questions as you did at The Skeptical Zone, but this seems to be your home territory so evasion is your only option. You are demonstrating intellectual dishonesty coupled with a complete lack of integrity. There is no honor in your actions. If you have any confidence at all in the word salad you call an argument, you answer these questions directly. If, instead, you would rather be seen to be more fearful of being proven wrong than of looking like a cowardly fool, continue as you have. The one thing you cannot do is honestly claim that you have an argument that supports ID. The only people who would agree with that are a couple of your less intellectually gifted sycophants here. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

So when you wrote "Well, if that’s how you’re defining "materially arbitrary" for the purposes of your argument, then sure, it’s "materially arbitrary" you were not indicating you understood how I was using the term "materially arbitrary" in my argument?

Clearly any subtlety is lost on you. I'll spell it out for you. Your use of the term "materially arbitrary" is no different than if you invented the word "splangilous" and used that to denote whatever concept it is that you're trying so unsuccessfully to communicate. If you want to use that word, fine. If you want to claim that some object or pattern is splangilous, fine. That doesn't provide allow any outside observer to determine what you mean by it. That's why I continued as follows in the part of my reply you continually refuse to address: I have the same question as before about your definition. Consider this rephrasing: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? It's high time you answer these direct, simple questions rather than rhetorically squirming like someone terrified of risking being proven wrong. onlooker

...and thanks to "JDNA4L" as well. Upright BiPed

Eric at 877, Hi Eric, I think that the brevity of the description of information is a quality truly imposed by its material reality. There are a certain (large) number of material configurations in the cosmos, yet only an exceedlingly small fraction of those carry a semantic quality. In my way of thinking, the complexity typically associated with describing information only (really) has to do with our attempts to quantify it - yet our attempts to identify it should remain rather simple. This is why opponents always make a hard run for the mathematical tall grass. Its safe ground not because of its precision, but because of its comparative ambiguity. Upright BiPed

It‘s as if the argument doesn't exist, only tiny disconnected bits of it exist. Self-blindness. Mung

What is really laughable, to me, is that if Upright BiPed was talking about computers and information transfer over the internet, I bet there would be no objection. But apply tie same principles to living things and, oh no! Now we don't know the meaning of arbitrary. Or whether a stochastic process can be inexorable. Or any number of other excuses for feigned ignorance. People like onlooker don't even address the argument. They take tiny pieces of it and argue over them so they won't have to think about the entirety of the argument. It 's as if the argument does exist, only tiny disconnected bits of it exist. Self-blindness. Mung

Wow. I send many many thanks for the encouraging thoughts. Thank you Mung. Thank you Stephen. Thank you Eric. Upright BiPed

Eric Anderson @877. Yes, indeed. You have absorbed and improved on my point. It's almost as if the Darwinists had rationalized their attack on UB's formulation by saying, "Well, I may have failed a preliminary test in basic arithmetic, but that fact alone does not disqualify me from challenging the principles of integral calculus." StephenB

Mung @876: Oh yes, definitely. UB's point is far more subtle and multi-dimensional than mine, and your description of his formulation is apt: He integrates the science with pure logic----and does it successfully. All those If/then's are carefully, delicately, and consciously constructed to serve a specific purpose. His finished product is irreducibly complex. StephenB

StephenB @875: Unfortunately, I think your experience is not unusual. You have a good point. It occurs to me that at some level of debate we don't need a highly technical definition of "information" (not because we don't want to do our best to pin down definitions at the appropriate time; just because it isn't necessary to make the point about how information arises, is transferred, etc.). At an initial stage, we could just stipulate that the "information" stuff we are talking about is the kind of information contained in DNA, as one example. After all, as it relates to origins, that is the information that objectively exists and must be explained. Biology textbooks are replete with references to this information; indeed there is a whole scientific discipline that has arisen in the wake of the discovery of information in life: bioinformatics. Therefore, it is possible to discuss nearly everything we need to discuss just by general reference to information of the type found in DNA. No need to get bogged down with some hyper-technical discussion about what does and does not constitute information. Anyway, just a thought. Actually getting a committed materialist to be willing to have a reasoned discussion on even that neutral approach, however, may be a separate challenge . . . If even with that kind of general and neutral approach to the concept someone is unwilling to acknowledge that there is "information" in DNA, then it is a pretty good bet that any further discussion (e.g., about what information is, how it arises, how it is transmitted, etc.) will be fruitless. Eric Anderson

I love the gist of Upright BiPed's argument though. He's talking about material facts. And logic. If you are going to transfer information in a material system certain things must be true. Darwinism presupposes that system and therefore cannot explain it. The Darwinists have no answer. None. Mung

Upright Biped @873: The quizzical responses to your beautifully explicit argument for information reminds me of some of my more general discussions with Darwinists. ID proponent: “Only an intelligent agent could produce the information present in a DNA molecule.” Darwinist: “Naturalistic forces can produce information just as well as an intelligent agent. ID Proponent: “Only intelligent agents have ever been known to produce information.” Darwiniist: “Information???, Whazzzaaattt???” Give me a more precise definition. ID proponent: Just use the same definition that informed your earlier claim. You’ve got to love it. StephenB

Onlooker, Why do you repeatedlty ask about the nature of the mechanism... given that you've been told a number of times that the observations do not address the nature of the mechanism. You've even been told why they do not address the mechanism. Can you provide a rational explanation for this demonstrated obstinance? Upright BiPed

Onlooker, Perhaps, as a part of your (obviously) very genuine desire to resolve the issue, you could return to the previous post you were responding to, and finally describe this supposed ambiguity you keep insisting exist? I'll be happy to re-post the text here for your convenience:

Now ask yourself some questions: Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid? If they do not materially interact, then how do you get from one to the other? Does it require something else (other than the nucleic triplet and the amino acid) to make the material connection between the two? If so, then is this material connection a matter of an inexorable law (existing between the triplet and the amino acid) or is it established by this something else (i.e. the aaRS) which operates within the system? If it is true that the material connection is established locally by the aaRS, and not globally by an inexorable law (between the triplet and the amino acid) then isn’t the relationship between the two “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law?” If it is then true that the relationship between the two is “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law”, is it also true that no physical laws are broken in establishing this relationship? If it is then true that the relationship is “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law” (while at the same time no laws are broken by the operation of system) then is this not an example of a “materially arbitrary” relationship which has been instantiated into a physical system? - – - – - – - – - Now if all of that is true (and it is), then it is a perfectly valid empirical statement to say that the “relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)”.

Upright BiPed

Onlooker, So when you wrote "Well, if that’s how you’re defining “materially arbitrary” for the purposes of your argument, then sure, it’s “materially arbitrary” you were not indicating you understood how I was using the term "materially arbitrary" in my argument? How odd. In any case, I gather from your retreat in #871, you are still unable to share the big refutation you keep promising. How surprising. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed, Sorry for the delay in replying. I hooked up with this stormy wench named Sandy and she battered me for a couple of days and left me powerless for a couple more before blowing on out of my life.

Well, if that’s how you’re defining "materially arbitrary" for the purposes of your argument, then sure, it’s "materially arbitrary" by your definition.

Great. You now understand what is meant by "materially arbitrary".

Oh dear. I gave you credit for enough intelligence to be able to detect sarcasm. My apologies, I won't make that mistake again. I also gave you credit for enough honesty not to quote mine what I wrote, particularly when it's so easy to see that you did so. Another mistake I shan't repeat. Here's what you ignored, with such lack of integrity: Given all that, I have the same question as before about your definition. Consider this rephrasing: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? I've asked these questions repeatedly. It would progress the discussion if you would answer them. How about an answer this time instead of continuing to demonstrate your fear of being proven wrong by avoiding simple, direct questions? onlooker

Mung, onlooker will believe and say any and all things required to protect her worldview. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed, I'd bet that onlooker believes the current genetic code evolved from a simpler code while at the same time maintaining she doesn't know what you mean by 'arbitrary.' Mung

onlooker:

That, combined with your repeated use of the word “inexorable”, suggests that you do not consider stochastic mechanisms to be covered by the word “law”.

Could you give us an example of a stochastic physical law that is not inexorable? Mung

Well, if that’s how you’re defining “materially arbitrary” for the purposes of your argument, then sure, it’s “materially arbitrary” by your definition.

haha. hahaha. hahahahahha. So now, understanding the meaning of arbitrary, and having a glimpse of what that means, onlooker goes back to asking what you mean by arbitrary. troll

D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

FAIL!

Is that how you use the word in your argument?

No.

If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

First, that's not a definition. Second, it lacks the essential characteristics of the word being defined.

I’ve asked these questions repeatedly.

That right. you're great at repeating things without actually trying to understand. kudos to you.

It would progress the discussion if you would answer them.

And it might progress the discussion if you weren't a troll. But you are, so ... Mung

onlooker:

In fact, every process in the transcription and translation cascade can be described without invoking any violations of chemistry or physics.

And every process inside of a computer can be described without invoking any violations of chemistry or physics. Does that mean computers are reducible to chemistry or physics? No. Every process inside my car's engine can be desicribed without invoking any violations of chemistry or physics. Does that mean my car's engine is reducible to chemistry and physics? No. Is onlooker really as stupid as it makes itself out to be? Most likely... Joe

Well, if that’s how you’re defining “materially arbitrary” for the purposes of your argument, then sure, it’s “materially arbitrary” by your definition.

Great. You now understand what is meant by "materially arbitrary". And just think, it only took you 54 days to grasp what a child could understand in mere minutes. So are you now prepared to demonstrate how the premises are untrue, or that the conclusion does not follow from them? As for your questions regarding a mechanism, I have already answered that back on October 4th. The fact that the relationship between the representation and its effect is materially arbitrary does not address any mechanism proposed to have established that relationship. The observation of the relationship stands on its own. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid? If they do not materially interact, then how do you get from one to the other? Does it require something else (other than the nucleic triplet and the amino acid) to make the material connection between the two? If so, then is this material connection a matter of an inexorable law (existing between the triplet and the amino acid) or is it established by this something else (i.e. the aaRS) which operates within the system? If it is true that the material connection is established locally by the aaRS, and not globally by an inexorable law (between the triplet and the amino acid) then isn’t the relationship between the two "context specific" and "not a matter of inexorable law?" If it is then true that the relationship between the two is "context specific" and "not a matter of inexorable law", is it also true that no physical laws are broken in establishing this relationship? If it is then true that the relationship is "context specific" and "not a matter of inexorable law" (while at the same time no laws are broken by the operation of system) then is this not an example of a "materially arbitrary" relationship which has been instantiated into a physical system?

(Bolding mine, to be discussed shortly.) Well, if that's how you're defining "materially arbitrary" for the purposes of your argument, then sure, it's "materially arbitrary" by your definition. Given all that, I have the same question as before about your definition. Consider this rephrasing: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? I've asked these questions repeatedly. It would progress the discussion if you would answer them.

Now if all of that is true (and it is), then it is a perfectly valid empirical statement to say that the "relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)".

Note the bolding in the previous quoted passage and in this one. See the difference? You switch from "inexorable law" to "physical law", which probably explains why you've avoided directly answering this question I've posed repeatedly: Does "law" mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? As near as I can tell, you're claiming that because there are other conceivable relationships between nucleotide triplets and amino acids that could have existed, the one that does exist is not "reducible to physical law". That, combined with your repeated use of the word "inexorable", suggests that you do not consider stochastic mechanisms to be covered by the word "law". All that's fine -- your argument, your definitions. However, your words don't change reality. In fact, every process in the transcription and translation cascade can be described without invoking any violations of chemistry or physics. If you are suggesting that the relationship we observe could not have arisen without some violation of chemistry and physics, you've got a lot more work to do to support such an assertion. In addition to all the other questions you've avoided answering, we're back to one you ran away from at The Skeptical Zone: How does your argument, assuming you ever make it coherent, support ID? onlooker

Onlooker, It’s good that you picked the following passage to try and make your point:

Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

Allow me to draw your attention to two specific sentences: "which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS." Now ask yourself some questions: Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid? If they do not materially interact, then how do you get from one to the other? Does it require something else (other than the nucleic triplet and the amino acid) to make the material connection between the two? If so, then is this material connection a matter of an inexorable law (existing between the triplet and the amino acid) or is it established by this something else (i.e. the aaRS) which operates within the system? If it is true that the material connection is established locally by the aaRS, and not globally by an inexorable law (between the triplet and the amino acid) then isn't the relationship between the two “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law?” If it is then true that the relationship between the two is "context specific" and "not a matter of inexorable law", is it also true that no physical laws are broken in establishing this relationship? If it is then true that the relationship is "context specific" and "not a matter of inexorable law" (while at the same time no laws are broken by the operation of system) then is this not an example of a “materially arbitrary" relationship which has been instantiated into a physical system? - - - - - - - - - Now if all of that is true (and it is), then it is a perfectly valid empirical statement to say that the “relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)”. Upright BiPed

onlooker- Please tell us about this physical law that determines which codon encodes for which amino acid. Or stuff it because you are only exposing your ignorance. But that doesn't matter to an anonymous, insipid troll... Joe

Upright BiPed,

In any case, my usage of the term “physical law” does not differ from any definition found in a standard reference text.

Okay, let's go back to your original statement then:

The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)".

This conflicts with what you write in the paragraph numbered 9:

Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

You seem to want to claim that some part of the transcription process is "arbitrary" by your yet to be clarified definition. However, you note that binding is dependent on "physical structures". How is that not "reducible to physical law" by your definition? And if it is "reducible to physical law" it can't be "arbitrary" as you use the word. I'd rather not skip ahead before understanding the rest of your argument, but your obviously fear-based reluctance to actually define your terms and articulate your premises clearly requires that I do so if any progress is to be made in this discussion. onlooker

lol. the return of 'onlooker' I think we need a new name for this obvious troll. Now it doesn't know what is mean by a physical law and thinks that every thing that occurs must be caused by some physical law or other and therefore can be reduced to a physical law, all while arguing it doesn't know what a physical law is. So here's what I recommend. It can help to define what a term means in terms of what it does not means. So allow onlooker to pose questions to which you will give a yes or no answer, and nothing more. Here, let me hlep: Do you, by the term physical law, mean anything that could possibly cause a physical effect? Example: The effect of the specific character sequence in onlookers post. Caused by physical law? Mung

Good grief. Now you don’t know what a physical law is?

I’m trying to understand how you are using the term in your argument. From what you’ve written thus far, I don’t know what you mean.

I think the argument in the OP is better suited to those people who have previously comprehended what a "physical law" is. I believe people generally understand that the invisible forces of gravity caused Newton's apple to fall to the ground, and that electromagnetic forces lift a paper clip to a magnet held above it. Others understand that the negatively charged electrons of one atom may attract the positively charged protons of another, forming the basis of a chemical bond. In any case, my usage of the term "physical law" does not differ from any definition found in a standard reference text. Given that fact, you will need to articulate what you do not understand. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Good grief. Now you don’t know what a physical law is?

I'm trying to understand how you are using the term in your argument. From what you've written thus far, I don't know what you mean. I certainly don't know what could possibly cause a physical effect without being a "physical law". Please provide a definition of what you mean by that term in your argument.

And if you only knew what people meant when they used terms like “physical law” you could then articulate the long promised refutation of the argument in the OP? Is that the case?

Oh, we're nowhere near that point yet. Due to your continued reluctance to actually explain what you're trying to say, you've still got nothing but word salad. Perhaps we'll get to the point of an actual argument when you decide to define your terms and clarify your claims as I've repeatedly asked. onlooker

what do you mean by “physical law”?

Good grief. Now you don't know what a physical law is? And if you only knew what people meant when they used terms like "physical law" you could then articulate the long promised refutation of the argument in the OP? Is that the case? Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed, Real life work has been interfering with my online time. My apologies for the delay.

Onlooker:… I have two questions. First, does "law" mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? UB: You ask about a mechanism. The issue of the representation being materially arbitrary to its effect does not address any proposed mechanism which may establish that relationship within a system. It does not address (in one way or another) whether a potential mechanism is purely law-based, or contains stochastic or other non-deterministic elements, or otherwise – it simply acknowledges that the relationship between the representation and its effect is not a matter of inexorable law. You cannot derive one from the other (without the system).

That's a lot of words to avoid answering a simple yes or no question. To refresh your memory, you made the statement:

The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)".

What, exactly, do you mean by "not reducible to physical law"? More specifically, what do you mean by "physical law"? This seems to be at the heart of some of your claims, so it's important to understand it in order to understand your larger argument. Can you give an example of something outside of biology that is "not reducible to physical law"? You have also failed to respond to my questions about your definition of the word "arbitrary". Consider this definition: D3. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? If you are genuinely interested in making your argument intelligible, you will answer these questions directly. onlooker

Defn 31: arbitrary - not not arbitrary Mung

onlooker, were the words you've decided to argue over chosen arbitrarily? You've got your hollow victory. Why are you back? Mung

Onlooker, When you are able to articulate an ambiguity in the definition given for the term "materially arbitrary": "The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)" I will be happy to address it. Upright BiPed

Onlooker,

D3?. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? Also, what do you mean by “reducible to physical law”? Is a stochastic process a “physical law”?

You brought this new round of questions up on Oct 4th. Your question was immediately addressed within two hours on Oct 4th. You then completely ignored that repsonse on the 6th, and then again on the 10th, and then again on the 12th. So I repeated the repsonse on the 12th, which you subsequently ignored on the 16th, and yet again today, the 19th. I will repeat my response now, in the hope that you wil stop ignoring it.

October 4th Onlooker:… I have two questions. First, does “law” mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? UB: You ask about a mechanism. The issue of the representation being materially arbitrary to its effect does not address any proposed mechanism which may establish that relationship within a system. It does not address (in one way or another) whether a potential mechanism is purely law-based, or contains stochastic or other non-deterministic elements, or otherwise – it simply acknowledges that the relationship between the representation and its effect is not a matter of inexorable law. You cannot derive one from the other (without the system).

Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

You have yet to provide a precise definition of “arbitrary” sufficient to allow one to parse your statement

That is your assertion, which has long since grown stale. The fact remains, you have been given an unambiguous definition: "The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)".

You are still failing to answer the questions I asked, repeatedly, in response to that definition. In order to verify my understanding, I have attempted to rephrase your definition to reflect what I think you might mean: D3'. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? Also, what do you mean by "reducible to physical law"? Is a stochastic process a "physical law"? Let's get these out of the way, and then perhaps I'll be able to parse your prose. onlooker

850 and still waiting... Mung

no intelligent life was harmed during the making of this thread Mung

No laws of physics are violated in the programming of configurable switches. Yet the effects of the particular functional settings of these configurable switches cannot be reduced to laws and constraints. - David L. Able Mung

Formalisms are governed by arbitrarily written rules, not by inescapable physicodynamic laws. The word "arbitrary" is often confused with "random." In a cybernetic context, arbitrary refers to choice contingency in the sense that no selection is constrained by cause-and-effect determinism. Neither is it forced by external formal controls. The choice at any decision node is uncoerced by necessity. But it is not just contingent (could occur in multiple ways despite the orderliness described by the laws of physics). David L. Abel Mung

onlooker:

Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

FAIL onlooker:

Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations.

FAIL Mung

indeed 845 and counting ... Mung

Mung, When Onlooker refused to enage in any examples of the word "arbitrary" (like the one you gave, or the ones I had given earlier in the conversation) he demonstrated that his position simply cannot afford to do so. For him to enter into an genuine discussion of examples and illustrations would quickly corner him into revealing that he already knows what the word "arbitrary" means. He must remain silent on the issue. And if you'll look back across the conversation, you'll see that he never actually engages in any descriptive contexts of the word for this very specific reason. Instead, he attempts to shuffle the words around, and offer alternatives, without ever stating in any meaningful way whatsoever "why" new words and alternatives are needed in the first place. Its all tactical, and not the least bit substantive. Of course, the ultimate reason for all of this gamesmanship is that he can think of no way whatsoever to refute the argument given at the top of the page. It is the evidence itself that beats him. He must therefore remain silent on the actual issues, while he slings insults under the pretense of trying to understand. As I said earlier, its a sorry-assed way to have to support your worldview. Better him than me. Upright BiPed

Configurable switches represent decision nodes and logic gates. They are set according to arbitrary rules, not laws. Here arbitrary does not mean random. Arbitrary means "not physicodynamically determined, but freely chosen." Arbitrary means "freely selectable" - choice contingent. - David L. Abel onlooker:

Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism.

FAIL onlooker:

Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration.

FAIL onlooker:

Arbitrary: Not reducible to law in any context.

FAIL What a freaking moron. Mung

Consider a bank of light switches. Pushing a switch to the up position turns on a set of lights. Pushing it to the down position turns off the same set of lights. Pushing a different switch to the up position turns on a different set of lights. That pushing the light switch up should turn on the light rather than having the lights come on when pushing it down is arbitrary. Which lights are controlled by which switch is arbitrary. The fact that onlooker cannot incorporate these concepts into a simple definition of arbitrary displays a certain lack of mental acuity. onlooker:

Unless and until you do answer those questions, any claim that your argument supports ID, or makes any sense at all, would be both incorrect and dishonest.

From the fact that you're ignorant and dishonest it does not follow that everyone else is too. Enjoy your rhetorical 'victory.' You don't get to claim it for everyone. It belongs to you and you alone. Mung

Onlooker,

You have yet to provide a precise definition of “arbitrary” sufficient to allow one to parse your statement

That is your assertion, which has long since grown stale. The fact remains, you have been given an unambiguous definition: "The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)". If you are unable to present an example of ambiguity in that definition, then your complaint has no merit. The ball is in your court. Can you substantiate your assertion? Upright BiPed

onlooker:

Unless and until you do answer those questions, any claim that your argument supports ID, or makes any sense at all, would be both incorrect and dishonest.

Upright BiPed's argument both makes sense and the observations support ID, and your objections to it are completely arbitrary. Mung

Joe (838):

Any and all claims you make are totally meaningless and amount to your pissing in the wind, as it were.

Upwind or downwind? Jerad

onlooker, Any and all claims you make are totally meaningless and amount to your pissing in the wind, as it were. Thankfully all objective onlookers see that. Joe

Upright BiPed,

Your battery of questions have been answered over and over again

No, they haven't. You have yet to provide a precise definition of "arbitrary" sufficient to allow one to parse your statement that

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

This appears to be essential to your argument, yet you repeatedly refuse to even attempt to clarify it. I suspect that the reason for this is that you fear that clarity will make the flaws in your argument obvious. It's evidently much better, from your point of view, to be incoherent than to risk being proven wrong. I'll keep monitoring this thread in the hopes that you'll develop some intellectual integrity and actually answer the questions I've posed. I won't be holding my breath, though. Unless and until you do answer those questions, any claim that your argument supports ID, or makes any sense at all, would be both incorrect and dishonest. onlooker

836 posts and waiting ... Mung

Onlooker,

If you are interested in people understanding and being able to discuss your argument, you would answer the questions I asked: D3?. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism.

Your battery of questions have been answered over and over again, yet you keep repeating them as if they haven’t. It is no mystery as to why you keep doing so. There is a materially arbitrary relationship between the representation and its resulting effect within a semiotic system. This arbitrary relationship is indeed the very thing that allows the system to operate in the first place. The system cannot logically transfer information without it, and in fact, no instance of information transfer has ever been observed otherwise. Faced with this empirical and logical reality, you desperately want to obfuscate this arbitrary aspect of the system. You have now spent weeks and weeks trying to change the definitions in way which would help you to either assume your own conclusions, or provide you the opportunity to attack me for assuming mine. And when I resist altering my argument to allow this, you then quickly follow up with the absolutely ridiculous pretense that you can’t understand the argument otherwise. But the description of the system is intended only to establish the specific methods of its operation; it is not to be subverted in order to support presumptions.

October 4th Onlooker:… I have two questions. First, does “law” mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? UB: You ask about a mechanism. The issue of the representation being materially arbitrary to its effect does not address any proposed mechanism which may establish that relationship within a system. It does not address (in one way or another) whether a potential mechanism is purely law-based, or contains stochastic or other non-deterministic elements, or otherwise – it simply acknowledges that the relationship between the representation and its effect is not a matter of inexorable law. You cannot derive one from the other (without the system).

Upright BiPed

D3?. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism.

FAIL

Is that how you use the word in your argument?

NO.

If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

Any connection to reality.

Also, what do you mean by “reducible to physical law”? Is a stochastic process a “physical law”?

That depends on whether the stochastic process is reducible to physical law. Mung

People understand the argument. Only those with an anti-ID agenda don't. And no one cares what you can parse. Joe

Upright BiPed,

I have repeated the definitons because I believe them to provide an unambiguous description of the system. When you provide an example of the ambiguity, I will address it.

If you are interested in people understanding and being able to discuss your argument, you would answer the questions I asked: D3'. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? Also, what do you mean by "reducible to physical law"? Is a stochastic process a "physical law"? Let's get these out of the way, and then perhaps I'll be able to parse your prose. onlooker

I just can't imagine anything not reducible to deterministic physical laws! arbitrary - it's just another word to mask our ignorance about the underlying laws. Mung

#827, I have repeated the definitons because I believe them to provide an unambiguous description of the system. When you provide an example of the ambiguity, I will address it. Upright BiPed

D3. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration.

At least this attempt includes the concept of a context (the system under consideration.)

D3?. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism.

Fail.

Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

A context.

Also, what do you mean by “reducible to physical law”? Is a stochastic process a “physical law”?

2LoT? Mung

As I’ve stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim.

Perhaps YOU are the problem... Joe

Upright BiPed,

Materially arbitrary: The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system).

This is just repeating what you said before, without answering my questions (for at least the second time). You have still not explained what you mean by "context specific". As I asked before, is this a better formulation of your defintion: D3. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration. I'm still not sure what the last bit adds. Consider this version: D3'. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? Also, what do you mean by "reducible to physical law"? Is a stochastic process a "physical law"? I would also still like to get clarity on your second premise:

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

As I've stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim. I have been trying to get a precise definition of what you mean by "arbitrary" in order to be able to parse this, but you are remarkably resistent to providing that. I am therefore asking you to rephrase this, preferably in a clear and concise format, to make it clear what you are trying to say. onlooker

Onlooker, Your entire involvement here has been an attempt to massage over the unambiguous definitions given in the argument, in the hopes that you can make them malleable for a counter-argument. This has already been discussed here and here among other places. Unfortunately for you, your strategy has been transparent for the entire duration of your stay. You are now left with nothing but to return here and use the repetition of your attempts as an opportunity to sling more insults. It's all you have left. As I have already pointed out, it’s a terrible way to have to protect your worldview. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. Protocol: An arrangement of matter that physical established the otherwise non-existent relationship between a representation and its effect. Materially arbitrary: The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system). Evoke: The representation can evoke an effect within a system, but because it is materially arbitrary to that effect, it cannot determine what that effect will be – the effect is physically determined by the protocol alone. - - - - - - - - - - - - - These two arrangements of matter are ubiquitous in any transfer of recorded information, and they must operate as described in order to accomplish what must be accomplished – the transfer of form via a material medium. These objects are both a logical necessity and a universal empirical observation. You cannot refute them, and your unending attempts to redefine them (with added ambiguity) have grown stale, even on your own side of the fence. Upright BiPed

A - The thing itself. B - The representation of the thing. By definition, B is not A. The representation of a thing is not the thing itself. C - the relationship between A and B. x - that which determines C, such that C cannot possibly be other than what it is, and there is no other alternative to C. Seriously, how hard was that? Comments UPB? Mung

onlooker:

As I’ve stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim.

And I say this is a flat out <lie. The fact that you so fastidiously avoid putting forth an adequate definition of 'arbitrary' shows you know exactly what the consequences would be if you did so, and puts the lie to your claim that you're simply clueless. No one who was not so deliberately, obtusely, and dishonestly 'clueless' could have avoided coming across an adequate definition of 'arbitrary' for as long as you've managed to. Mung

onlooker, does your intellectual dishonesty not disturb you in the slightest?

The answer, sadly, is no. Mung

Upright BiPed, Speaking of The Skeptical Zone, you've got outstanding questions over there still. onlooker

Upright BiPed, 820 comments in and we've only got two definitions and a premise: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences D2. Information: The form of a thing. P1. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. We also have a couple of open issues and related questions: - On the precise definition of "arbitrary" as you use it in your argument: Is this a better formulation of your defintion: D3'. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration. I’m still not sure what the last bit adds. Consider this version: D3''. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? - On your second premise

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

As I've stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim. I have been trying to get a precise definition of what you mean by "arbitrary" in order to be able to parse this, but you are remarkably resistent to providing that. I am therefore asking you to rephrase this, preferably in a clear and concise format, to make it clear what you are trying to say. When Lizzie was here attempting to understand your claims, you muddied the waters continuously until she gave up in frustration. At The Skeptical Zone, you made the error of being partially clear on a few points and ran away from the ensuing questions. Here you appear to be trying to combine both techniques. The bottom line is that you still have nothing but word salad and have clearly demonstrated your fear of providing clarity. It's time to man up and either make your argument understandable or admit that you've got nothing. What I expect instead is for you to continue to ignore or obfuscate and claim victory despite your clearly willful failure to explain or support your claims. Prove me wrong. onlooker

onlooker, does your intellectual dishonesty not disturb you in the slightest? Mung

D3?. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration.

Fail.

D3”. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism.

Fail.

Is that how you use the word in your argument?

No.

If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

Well, look at the words you use, look at the words Upright BiPed uses, and then plug into your "definitions" the missing words. Then consider the words you added, and the concept or concepts they convey, and that should answer your question. Assuming you're serious. My guess is you won't even attempt to do what I suggest. Mung

onlooker- No one cares about your "questions". And no one cares about you. Someday, maybe, you will have some evidence to share and then we will care. Until themn you are just a pimple on the arse of progress. Congratulations.... Joe

Upright BiPed,

That’s fine, let’s find one that you do accept and that I am able to understand well enough to repeat back to you.

I have said that the relationship between a representation and its effect within a system is context specific, and I further stated that the relationship is not reducible to inexorable law. It requires the system (i.e. a specific context) in order to establish the relationship. There is nothing about that definition which is ambiguous from a material standpoint.

You have completely ignored my questions. Here they are again: Is this a better formulation of your defintion: D3'. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration. I’m still not sure what the last bit adds. Consider this version: D3''. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? onlooker

Diogenes: So I won’t be back for a while, maybe a long while. And so UB's post will not be refuted after all, at least not by Diogene, unless Diogene decides to come back of course. I'm sure if Diogene was to put his/her mind to it, it would only be a matter of time really ;o) PeterJ

...ooops

Now I can ask myself “why must I describe the translation of nucleic triplets into amino acids [in terms of matrices and vectors] if the very men who elucidated the system for all others to see (and who won Nobel prizes for their discoveries) did not do so?” And I have an answer. It’s because your entire counter-argument is deliberate, wholesale obfuscation (i.e. bullshit) fostered for the express purpose of avoiding the argument given in the OP.

Upright BiPed

...the material arrangement has a quality which extends beyond it's mere materiality. (Hello “arbitrary”)

I just can't wait for onlooker's next attempt to redefine arbitrary in light of this statement. On pins and needles I am. Mung

Diogenes,

…but you won’t answer ... Why not? ... You won’t answer … It’s just a number and you won’t answer … I think you’re afraid to say it.

If I may break into your mudslinging fest for just a moment; I’ll try not to impose on you too much with the recorded facts of this conversation. You specifically asked me to clarify what I meant by “context specific”. In my very next post I gave you that clarification. You then ignored that clarification and started a whole new line of argument. Instead of just ignoring the questions you asked, I asked if you now understood my usage of the term. And now you’ve come back to claim – ridiculously – that I am afraid to answer your questions. You are a one man attack on integrity. Really. Every single instance of you questioning why I havn't answered you is an instance of pure intellectual dishonesty. Period. Since you seem to now not care about your earlier argument, I will now address your new round of argument. Diogenes: How many parts are in the system? Did you even read the OP? There is an irreducible core of two material objects; a representation and a protocol. So you may ask “Then why do you include the effect as well?” Simply because if you could not identify an unambiguous functional effect, then you could not identify a representation or protocol from any other arrangement of matter. As an example, imagine a lab researcher synthesizing by accident the ‘attack’ pheromone of an ant. Would he be able to identify it as a chemical signal without the system of the ant? Do you understand? That is the whole point; the material arrangement has a quality which extends beyond it mere materiality. (Hello “arbitrary”) It must be observed in a system in order to confirm that quality exists. Diogenes: Matrices? Vectors? Good grief. In my office files I have several papers which were published by the men who decoded the genetic code and identified the individual objects that instantiate that code into a physical system. These papers include peer-reviewed journal articles, as well as correspondence between various people. I think it is safe for me to answer you in this way: How many times does the word or mathematical concept “vector” appear in those documents? Zero. How many times does the word or mathematical concept “matrix” appear in those documents? Zero. Now I can ask myself “why must I describe the translation of nucleic triplets into amino acids if the very men who elucidated the system for all others to see (and who won Nobel prizes for their discoveries) did not do so?” And I have an answer. It’s because your entire counter-argument is deliberate, wholesale obfuscation (i.e. bullshit) fostered for the express purpose of avoiding the argument given in the OP. Upright BiPed

@ Mung DTU! This dude is one piece of work.. wateron1

So guys, do you think Diogenes has refuted UB’s argument?

I don't. :) Mung

But the reactions still produced ribose and you absolutely need ribose to make ribonucleotides, you moron. diarhea:

They never did you blithering toff.

According to the paper I provided, they did, you ignorant git. Ya see diarhea, in order to have a ribonucleotide, you HAVE to have ribose. So either theye did NOT synthesize a ribonucleotide as they said, OR YOU are a complete imbecile. diarhrea:

What Slow is saying is like: ribonucleotides have hydrogen in them; therefore, the reaction produced hydrogen!

Only an ignorant turd would say something like that, and here you are. Joe

I have a problem with a person who follows me from blog to blog, and who seems to monitor UD 24/7. So I won't be back for a while, maybe a long while. Diogenes

Diogenes:

I want mathematical definitions. Math is clarifying. Examples are not.

Diogenes:

Me: In the example I gave above, of air bubbles in ice cores recording the climate, that was Shannon’s mutual information, produced by natural processes.

I don't want stinking examples, I want MATHS! Mung

Diogenes:

Simple question! But you ask a creationist a simple question and he never, ever, gives a simple answer.

I have a theory about that. We're not creationists. Mung

Slow tells us:

But the reactions still produced ribose

They never did you blithering toff. You don't understand squat about chemistry. A ribose moiety is not a ribose. If a molecule has a moiety in it, that does not mean that the synthesis of the molecule "produced" the moiety. This is not what the word "produce" means in chemical synthesis! Moron. What Slow is saying is like: ribonucleotides have hydrogen in them; therefore, the reaction produced hydrogen! Or maybe: ribonucleotides have protons in them; therefore, the reaction produced protons! Or perhaps: ribonucleotides have quarks in them; therefore, the reaction produced quarks! Or perhaps: ribonucleotides have energy in them; therefore, the reaction produced energy! Ribonucleotides have a ribose moiety in them; therefore, the reaction produced ribose! What an idiot. Diogenes

Diogenes:

I asked you directly: how many parts are in your system?

Wouldn't that depend on the context? Mung

IS WIKIPEDIA LYING!? HUH? HUH? ARE THEY LYING!? I can't believe you responded to that. =P Mung

And you demanded that I clairify myself. You then ignored that clarification. Why is that?

I don't think it's a clarification. What implements or instantiates the "context"? The Cause, the Adaptor, or the Effect? It think it must be the Adaptor, but you won't answer. Why not? I asked you directly: how many parts are in your system? Are there other components besides Cause, Adaptor, Effect? You won't answer. It's not hard. It's a count. How many parts in your system? 2? 3? 4? It's just a number and you won't answer. And it is relevant, and that's why you have NOT clarified what you mean by "context." I want to know what part of the system instantiates this "context". To answer that, we need a count of parts in the system. Simple question! But you ask a creationist a simple question and he never, ever, gives a simple answer.

do you now understand my usage of the phrase “context specific”, or not?

I think I know what you intend to mean: the "context" is determined by features of the Adaptor-- but you won't say that out loud, and I think you're afraid to say it. Why is that? Are you afraid to admit your system has only three parts? If I know what you intend to mean, then you will say, "the system has three parts and the context is determined by features of the Adaptor." But I believe you will not give a direct answer, because you want to leave yourself wiggle room. You don't want to fix the number of parts in the system. You don't want to say which part(s) instantiate the context. Instead, you try to define things with examples.

For instance, the English word “apple” is a representation that operates in a system of English-speaking humans beings, but it means absolutely nothing whatsoever to earthworms or turtles or bacteria.

No, I don't want examples. You can't define "context" unless you say how many parts are in the system, and which part(s) instantiate the context. You completely ignored my questions about whether Cause and Effect are Vectors, the set of Adaptors is a matrix, etc. This is far more "clarifying" to me than a list of EXAMPLES. I don't want examples. I want mathematical definitions. Math is clarifying. Examples are not. Do you understand matrix multiplication? I'm not being snarky. If you don't understand matrix multiplication, it's all right, I promise not to make fun of you. But I would like to know why you dodged the vector questions. Diogenes

Joe said: what Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, demonstrates is there is an indirect chemical pathway, ie an alternative to what Meyer and others thought, to get the sugar and bases together. diarhea sez I am wrong but then provides a slew of posts supporting what I said, and it is too stupid to even realize that. Joe

Boldface above was disproven by Powner et al., who showed you don’t need ribose and nucleotide bases, who indeed, had none in their reaction!

But the reactions still produced ribose and you absolutely need ribose to make ribonucleotides, you moron. Also what Sutherland said proves Meyer was correct that no known natural process can produce ribonucleotides. Joe

@Dung

IS WIKIPEDIA LYING!? HUH? HUH? ARE THEY LYING!?

No. Wikipedia says a nucleotide "consists of" ribose and nucleobase and phosphate. This is true. It doesn't say you must cause make a ribose, make a base, and make them "come together." That's false.

Wikipedia: RNA is made up of a long chain of components called nucleotides. Each nucleotide consists of a nucleobase, a ribose sugar, and a phosphate group.

Wikipedia does not say that to make a nucleotide, you must form a ribose, form a nucleobase, and make them "come together." That's what Meyer says.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible…

Meyer insists the dilemma is you can't form sugars. Wikipedia didn't say that was a dilemma. Powner et al. proved it isn't, thus proving Meyer wrong, not Wikipedia.

Meyer: The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars.

Meyer says the "acute obstacle" is that you can't make ribose. Wikipedia did not say that was an "acute obstacle." Powner et al. proved it isn't, thus proving Meyer wrong, not Wikipedia. (Notice how Meyer in fact lists each problem more than once, changing the wording slightly, to make one problem seem like more than one.)

Meyer: Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

Meyer says both ribose and base are needed. That is not what Wikipedia said. Powner et al. proved Meyer wrong, not Wikipedia.

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

Meyer says you need a ribose, need a base, and they must "come together." That is not what Wikipedia said. Powner et al. proved Meyer wrong, not Wikipedia. Diogenes

No Slow, Meyer was wrong. In 2008 it was understandable, but in 2012 you idiots are just lying and playing dumb. Creationists always do this. You point out their factual falsehoods, you compare your words to facts. Creationists then play dumb, and pretend like they can't understand English. Duh. Note that Slow, like all creationists, cannot answer a simple question, nor say "I don't know." See what happened above when Dung asked me for an equation. I linked to the equation. That's what happens when you ask a scientists a question. Here's an answer. Simple. Now we have Slow writing drivel like this:

In addition Sutherland tells us (supports what Meyer said): "The contextually specific chemoselectivity, and the systems chemistry aspects of this newly uncovered self-assembly route to activated pyrimidine nucleotides suggest that the chemistry should be viewed as predisposed. However, the route as operated thus far in the laboratory is associated with several steps, and the conditions for these steps are different. Furthermore, purification in between certain steps was carried out to make analysis of the chemistry easier. Clearly, these issues need to be addressed before the synthesis can be seen as geochemically plausible."

No Slow, not one sentence above changes the fact that what Meyer wrote was disproven.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible… The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

Boldface above was disproven by Powner et al., who showed you don't need ribose and nucleotide bases, who indeed, had none in their reaction!

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

Boldface above was disproven by Powner et al., who showed you ribose and nucleotide bases don't need to "come together"-- who indeed, had none in their reaction! Slow is playing creationist: pretending to be too dumb to understand English. I'll talk creationist-style. Little Joey, Mr. Meyer says that to make a big circle, you must make a big doughnut and a little circle "come together" in the middle. But, he says, you cannot make a doughnut and little circle at the same time, so no one can make a big circle! But Mr. Powner showed that Mr. Meyer was wrong: to make a big circle, you don't have to make a big doughnut and a little circle "come together." No, you can make two half-circles and connect them. Little Joey replies: but I can SEE the doughnut and the little circle in the middle! I see them "come together" in my imagination! That means they "came together"! So Mr. Meyer is still right! In my imagination! Diogenes

Correction: bs + *bluster wateron1

So guys, do you think Diogenes has refuted UB's argument? He has been taunting on the blogosphere he has crushed the UDites beyond recovery. [Chuckle] Mungs analogy of bs + bolster = Diogenes seems to sum it up quite well, but wanted to hear your thoughts. wateron1

Meyer:

both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA.

Diogenes:

... true or false?

True. Last I checked, RNA is still composed of nucleotides. And if that's changed Wikipedia still hasn't been updated.

RNA is made up of a long chain of components called nucleotides. Each nucleotide consists of a nucleobase, a ribose sugar, and a phosphate group.

IS WIKIPEDIA LYING!? HUH? HUH? ARE THEY LYING!? chill Mung

diogenes- The following explains which step formed the "sugar", ie ribose-Ribonucleotides- John D. Sutherland In addition Sutherland tells us (supports what Meyer said):

The contextually specific chemoselectivity, and the systems chemistry aspects of this newly uncovered self-assembly route to activated pyrimidine nucleotides suggest that the chemistry should be viewed as predisposed. However, the route as operated thus far in the laboratory is associated with several steps, and the conditions for these steps are different. Furthermore, purification in between certain steps was carried out to make analysis of the chemistry easier. Clearly, these issues need to be addressed before the synthesis can be seen as geochemically plausible.

Joe

Diogenes, You seem to want skip over something here. You directly accused me of deception regarding my use of the phrase “context specific”. And you demanded that I clairify myself. You then ignored that clarification. Why is that?

Diogenes: Answer the question. Stop pretending like you don’t know what it means. As Onlooker has made very clear, you have slipped in the phrase “context specific” without defining what “context specific” means. We want a clear definition of that.

My response at #755:

UB: So you would like me to explain “context specific” in terms of the relationship between a representation and its effect within a system? Okay. A representation must operate in a “specific context” (i.e. in a specific system) in order to result in its effect. Otherwise, there will be no relationship between the representation and its effect. The existence of the relationship (between representation and effect) is therefore specific to a system (i.e. “context specific”). For instance, the English word “apple” is a representation that operates in a system of English-speaking humans beings, but it means absolutely nothing whatsoever to earthworms or turtles or bacteria. This seems to be a rather simple concept to understand, leaving virtually nothing to question regarding its meaning.

So...do you now understand my usage of the phrase “context specific”, or not? Upright BiPed

what a maroon Mung

Mung:

These are measures of information. They do not define what information is.

Diogenes:

blah rant blah MUTUAL INFORMATION!!!

Mutual information is also a measure of information. Diogenes:

Before you ask a question like that, you can’t check Wikipedia first for the equations?

Wikipedia:

In probability theory and information theory, the mutual information (sometimes known by the archaic term transinformation) of two random variables is a quantity that measures the mutual dependence of the two random variables. The most common unit of measurement of mutual information is the bit, when logarithms to the base 2 are used.

Diogenes:

Mutual information is a measure of correlation or entanglement between two properties, x and y. x and y can be any two quantities. Specifically, it measures how much your uncertainty about y decreases if you know x (and vice versa).

sigh Diogenes:

All natural processes create information.

Mung:

About what?

Diogenes:

Specifically, i measures how much your uncertainty about y decreases if you know x (and vice versa).

So this natural process creates information if someone is present and has some knowledge about x and some uncertainty about y? And if no one is there with prior knowledge about x and no uncertainty about y? Mung

So diogenes is saying that Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, did NOT produce ribonucleotides as ribonucleotides contain ribose. Ya see you cannot have a ribonucleotide without ribose yet diogenes sez they didn't produce any. Ribose is the sugar I was talking about when diogenes spewed no sugars were produced. And it also appears that diogenes is too stupid to understand the following: what Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, demonstrates is there is an indirect chemical pathway, ie an alternative to what Meyer and others thought, to get the sugar and bases together. Because he keeps posting Meyer saying they need the ribose and the bases- yet I just covered that and diogenes choked on it. Joe

Now it's 40 comments since my demolition of the "semiotic argument" in comment #749. After 40 comments, my argument has not been refuted nor even addressed. When it gets to 100 comments after my comment #749, I'll declare victory and refutation of the semiotic argument. UB: I already explained to you that your definition of "arbitrary" and "context specific" is very vague because you will not address the "null context" in which natural laws (allegedly) do not determine the outcome of the system. There are at least two contexts here, possibly many. In the normal biological context, specific causes lead to specific effects by the out-working of inexorable physical laws. That's because the normal biological case has a specific set of tRNA's. But implicit in UB's argument is that, in some other hypothetical sense, natural laws DO NOT inexorably connect a cause to the particular effect normally seen in the biological context. So there are at least two contexts (possibly many more.) Normal biological context - cause leads to specific effect determined by natural laws. "Null" context - cause leads to NO particular effect, or a "random" mix of effects, determined by natural laws. Why are these two "contexts" different? As I explained very clearly in #749 which everyone ignored, the only possible reason is that the Adaptor state must be different. So if there are at least two (or more) "contexts" and one is a "null context", then there must be at least two (or more) sets of Adaptors including one "null" set of Adaptors. The "null adaptor" can be visualized as a set of tRNA's in which each anticodon is bound equally to all 20 amino acids. I conclude that changes in "context" correspond to changes in the set of Adaptors because I think the "system" (also not defined by UB) must have only three things: Cause, Adaptor, Effect. Now here are my questions. 1. UB: do you agree that your System has nothing in it but three thing: a Cause, a set of Adaptors, and an Effect? (= codon, set of tRNA's, amino acid). 2. UB: Do you agree that the Cause and Effect are best represented as vectors as I explained above? 3. UB: Do you agree that the set of Adaptors (tRNA's) are best represented as a matrix as I explained above? Diogenes

Slow:

Slow: And yet the sugar formed, meaning I was correct and you are ignorant.

No, there was no sugar Slow. No step in the reaction made any sugar. The reaction made a half-sugar connected to a half-base. That's not a sugar. It's understandable that Meyer would make this mistake in 2008. In 2012, you people aren't making mistakes-- you're just outright lying.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible… The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

Slow: Are the words in boldface true or false?

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

Slow: Are the words in boldface true or false?

Slow: And yet the sugar formed, meaning I was correct and you are ignorant.

Tell me, Slow, what step in the reaction of Powner et al. 2009 formed a "sugar"? Specifically, which step formed a "sugar"? Do you think lying contributes to scientific progress? A person who was confident in his skills could admit when he's wrong. It might be understandable for Meyer to be wrong in 2008. But you UDites can't admit you're wrong in 2012, because you know you're intellectually inferior, so you have to keep up the appearance that you know and "care about" evidence. The appearance of authority is everything to IDists-- appearance of authority, not evidence. Do you think lying cures diseases? Diogenes

@Dung:

These are measures of information. They do not define what information is.

What source told you that? Who is the authority who told you that? Can you cite a source for that statement? They do define what information is. Unlike your cultist bafflegab, they are widely employed by thousands, if not tens of thousands, of scientists every day. No forensic scientist, no archaeologist, no anthropologist, no molecular biologist has ever employed your cultist bafflegab about CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, FSCI/O, and the other alphabet soup, in solving any real problem. You're free to come up with your own definition, but cough up the equation and THEN show it's useful, like K-C or mutual information.

Me: In the example I gave above, of air bubbles in ice cores recording the climate, that was Shannon’s mutual information, produced by natural processes.

Dung: Show us the math.

Before you ask a question like that, you can't check Wikipedia first for the equations? Mutual information is a measure of correlation or entanglement between two properties, x and y. x and y can be any two quantities. Specifically, it measures how much your uncertainty about y decreases if you know x (and vice versa). x and y can be anything, but you have to pick something interesting to make scientists care. In my example above, x = ratio of isotopes of oxygen 018 / 016 and y = climate. Any correlation between them means nonzero mutual information. K-C information is more complex. Diogenes

Diogenes:

All natural processes create information.

About what?

By information, specifically I mean: Shannon’s mutual information or Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity. Both of these are produced in vast quantities by natural processes.

These are measures of information. They do not define what information is.

In the example I gave above, of air bubbles in ice cores recording the climate, that was Shannon’s mutual information, produced by natural processes.

Show us the math.

Of course Dembski and Marks have no mathematical way of measuring how much information was connivingly “infused” by the scientists...

hypocrite Mung

"D3. Arbitrary: Not reducible to law in any context." fail "D3?. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration." fail "D3”. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism." fail Mung

Onlooker,

That’s fine, let’s find one that you do accept and that I am able to understand well enough to repeat back to you.

I have said that the relationship between a representation and its effect within a system is context specific, and I further stated that the relationship is not reducible to inexorable law. It requires the system (i.e. a specific context) in order to establish the relationship. There is nothing about that definition which is ambiguous from a material standpoint. You ask about a mechanism. The issue of the representation being materially arbitrary to its effect does not address any proposed mechanism which may establish that relationship within a system. It does not address (in one way or another) whether a potential mechanism is purely law-based, or contains stochastic or other non-deterministic elements, or otherwise – it simply acknowledges that the relationship between the representation and its effect is not a matter of inexorable law. You cannot derive one from the other (without the system). Upright BiPed

Diogenes:

@Dung

If that's meant to be some sort of insult, it's not, lol. You'll need to scroll up further in the thread to find out, because I'm not going to repeat the garbage that onlooker posted. Mung

Upright BiPed,

A precise definition of "arbitrary" was given on this thread on August 23rd. The relationship between the representation and its effect was unambiguously defined as context specific and not established by inexorable law. Any attempt to define a thing in an unambiguous manner, necessarily depends on the ability to establish a unique identifying characteristic (or characteristics) which separates that thing from other things. The unique identifying characteristic of the relationship between a representation and its effect is that the relationship is "not established by inexorable law" and is "context specific". There is no ambiguity in that definition (i.e. either the relationship is reducible to law in any context, or it’s not). As with your previous attempts to add imprecision to the argument, I do not accept your definition.

That's fine, let's find one that you do accept and that I am able to understand well enough to repeat back to you. We can start with what you just wrote: D3. Arbitrary: Not reducible to law in any context. This is better, but I have two questions. First, does "law" mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? Second, what does the "context specific" bit mean? Is it somehow essential to your definition? I see from a later comment to Diogenes that you discuss context further:

A representation must operate in a "specific context" (i.e. in a specific system) in order to result in its effect. Otherwise, there will be no relationship between the representation and its effect. The existence of the relationship (between representation and effect) is therefore specific to a system (i.e. "context specific"). For instance, the English word "apple" is a representation that operates in a system of English-speaking humans beings, but it means absolutely nothing whatsoever to earthworms or turtles or bacteria.

This does add some clarity, but makes me wonder what you mean when you said "rudicible to law in any context". Is this a better formulation of your defintion: D3'. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration. I'm still not sure what the last bit adds. Consider this version: D3''. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? onlooker

diogenes continues its lies:

That is not what they did. There was no ribose. They did not get the sugar and bases together because there never was a sugar!

And yet the sugar formed, meaning I was correct and you are ignorant.

What Meyer wrote on p. 301, 302 and 303 is still disproven.

Liar. Page 304:

In sum, synthesizing the building blocks of the RNA molecule under realistic prebiotic conditions has proven formidably difficult.

Just doesn’t seem to capture what diogenes said. Face it diogenes, you are a demented lowlife liar- that is an observation, not an insult. Joe

@PAV at #684: This is re: Information theorist Jeff Shallit's debunking of Meyer's bogus information theory. PAV rebuts by not even understanding a single thing about information theory. Shallit in fact pointed out many errors in Meyer's book, but PAV ignores almost all of them, only mentioning one of Shallit's arguments. Shallit discusses weather prediction algorithms, so PAV tries to rebut, but completely misunderstands:

PAV: As a thought experiment, let’s go to Denver, CO 2 million years ago. And let’s say we’re aliens from another planet. We want to know what the weather has been like over the last five years. How do we get this information? Are there any humans that exist? No. Are there any instruments for recording this information? No. Is there anything that can be used to store the information if it could be recorded in the first place? No.

Oh, come on. This is both false and irrelevant. It's irrelevant to Shallit's point which was about a weather prediction algorithm, which predicted future climate. For some unknown reason, PAV changes it to information about past weather. It's also bizarrely inaccurate. All natural processes create information. How do you think scientists reconstruct ancient climates? Lots of ways. Take an ice core from an ancient glacier: look in the air bubbles, measure the ratio of isotopes of oxygen. Bingo, climate. Look at tree rings: ring thickness, isotope ratios. Varves in ancient lakes: sediment thickness, isotope ratios tell you how much rainfall there is. Both corals and stromatolites lay down a new layer every day, not just every year, so you can reconstruct past weather day by day.

IOW, if humans didn’t exist in the first place, then this ‘information’ wouldn’t exist either. This ‘information’ that Shallit seems to think exists outside of humans is no where to be found unless, and only, if humans are there to (1) build thermometers, (2) measure the temperature, and (3) record it. No humans, then no information...

This is bizarre philosophical wishful thinking that has nothing to do with information theory. It's tautology: PAV just defines it to be so! Like most IDologues, PAV has confused 'meaning' with information. Maybe only humans can create 'meaning', but information is well-defined mathematically, and all natural processes create information. By information, specifically I mean: Shannon's mutual information or Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity. Both of these are produced in vast quantities by natural processes. In the example I gave above, of air bubbles in ice cores recording the climate, that was Shannon's mutual information, produced by natural processes. No humans required. We can only know the past because natural processes create information. As for Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity, it's increased by random mutations. Shallit is an expert in information theory and teaches a class in K-C complexity so that's what he's thinking of. Everybody knows K-C complexity is increased by natural processes. No humans required. Not controversial. So what's up with Shallit's "weather prediction" argument? Dembski and Marks claimed that computer programs can never create information-- they accuse conniving scientists of "smuggling in" all the information that comes out. There are many counter-arguments to that, but this one goes: Programmers write one general weather prediction algorithm. Remote sensors feed it current data, and it runs the algorithm for every city, town etc. on Earth. So Dembski and Marks would say that the programmers "smuggled in" some information when they wrote the program. Of course Dembski and Marks have no mathematical way of measuring how much information was connivingly "infused" by the scientists they smear as dishonest (their only method is to assume any efficiency is due to smuggling.) But they'd admit it's some finite number, like X. But the weather prediction algorithm predicts the weather for every city, town etc. every hour, hour after hour, year after year. The information Y that comes out is functional, hence specified. It involves many bits, hence complex. But it is unlimited-- wait enough years, and the amount of information Y out must eventually exceed X in. Whatever X bits Dembski and Marks accuse the scientists of "smuggling" in, Y must eventually exceed X. See Jeff Shallit for more on Meyer's bogus information theory. Diogenes

UB:

Firstly, if you are accussed of putting words in someone’s mouth, and you deny it based upon what that person has written. Then the simple resolution is to post what that person has written which supports your claim. You did not do that.

FALSE. That is exactly what I did and you know it.

Instead, you simply re-asserted your personal view on what that person had written.

FALSE. I'M the one who copied the quotes above! You wouldn't. Joe wouldn't. Did I or did I not copy the quotes here?

Secondly, I own Meyer’s book, and I have reviewed the pages in question.

Then you have no excuse! Why didn't YOU copy the quotes two weeks ago?

In truth, Meyer’s comments are not even controversial.

Irrelevant. The question is: were they accurate? Joe says they were. Do you agree?

The simple fact is that you have grossly misrepresented Meyer, and then attacked his character on the grounds of your own wilfull misrepresentation.

FALSE. I didn't attack Meyer's integrity on the grounds of the nucleotide thing. I could've attacked Meyer's character on a half dozen OTHER issues, but not the nucleotides. About the nucleotides, Meyer was just wrong, not dishonest. A lot of people made that mistake. What's insufferable is that Joe and you won't even admit he was wrong! You (esp Joe) double down, and say he was right. I'm attacking YOUR character, by quoting your own words.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible… The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

UB: Are the words in boldface true or false?

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

UB: Are the words in boldface true or false?

UB: Instead, you simply re-asserted your personal view on what that person had written.

UB, is that true of false? Take a look at several comments above. Did you notice any blockquotes up there, maybe? Like with page numbers? Like maybe the quotes that you and Joe refused for 2 weeks to copy from the books in your hands? Diogenes

Joe demands quotes from me. But I'm not allowed to ask quotes from Joe. If the quote actually disproved what I wrote, then why didn't Joe just copy out two sentences himself, two weeks ago? Two sentences would be enough to prove me wrong-- if I were wrong. So what was he afraid of? And now Joe doubles down.

Joe: what Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, demonstrates is there is an indirect chemical pathway, ie an alternative to what Meyer and others thought, to get the sugar and bases together.

YES, I SAID that because it is what they did. Don’t blame me for your ignorance.

NO. That is not what they did. There was no ribose. They did not get the sugar and bases together because there never was a sugar! What Meyer wrote on p. 301, 302 and 303 is still disproven.

You are one demented lowlife.

You can issue all the insults you want-- you have to, because you've got nothing but ad hominems. You UDites are only "good" at insults, but you don't know any science. They did not get the sugar and bases together because there never was a sugar! No matter how many insults you type out, it does not make a sugar magically appear and link to a ribose! What Meyer wrote on p. 301, 302 and 303 is still disproven. Here is how Joe asks me for quotes:

Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. Please provide the quote or admit that you made it up. [#528]

So he demands I provide a quote. If I don’t provide a quote, then Joe says I’m lying. Now compare that to what happens when I ask Joe for a quote.

Diogenes: I don’t have a copy on hand. Since you do, please copy the text from page 303. [#536]

Joe: And no, I am not your secretary so I will not be wasting my time copying an entire page just so that you can see for yourself that you are FoS. [#544]

If the quote really disproved my point, why didn't Joe copy it out? He can't take a cell phone photo of one page? It's 2012. I could take a cell phone photo of a page and do OCR on my cell phone. But Joe can't, because it would make him look bad. He wants to change the subject!

Joe: Then shut up about it because obvioulsy you don’t have a clue. [#537]

Joe can demand quotes from me. But I cannot demand quotes from Joe. Why? Joe would not provide the quote because he read that page, and he knew it would prove he was lying. When Joe demands that I provide a quote-- well! If I don’t provide the quote when he asks, Joe calls me a liar. When I demand Joe provides a quote-- well! If Joe doesn't provide the quote when I ask, then Joe also calls me a liar-- I'm a liar because he wouldn't provide the quote. Diogenes

So, returning to the subject on the table... (and the topic of the thread) Diogenes, you returned and immediately accused me of deception regarding my use of the phrase "context specific" and you demanded I clarify.

Diogenes: Answer the question. Stop pretending like you don’t know what it means. As Onlooker has made very clear, you have slipped in the phrase “context specific” without defining what “context specific” means. We want a clear definition of that.

So I responded at #755:

UB: So you would like me to explain “context specific” in terms of the relationship between a representation and its effect within a system? Okay. A representation must operate in a “specific context” (i.e. in a specific system) in order to result in its effect. Otherwise, there will be no relationship between the representation and its effect. The existence of the relationship (between representation and effect) is therefore specific to a system (i.e. “context specific”). For instance, the English word “apple” is a representation that operates in a system of English-speaking humans beings, but it means absolutely nothing whatsoever to earthworms or turtles or bacteria. This seems to be a rather simple concept to understand, leaving virtually nothing to question regarding its meaning.

Do you undertsnd my usage of the phrase "context specific", or not? Upright BiPed

diogenes, You have serious issues. Meyer never said what YOU claimed he said and nothing you have quoted supports your claims. Also all four nucleotides have been formed under LAB conditions, not under natural/ prebiotic conditions. And the conditions are not the same for all four. what Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, demonstrates is there is an indirect chemical pathway, ie an alternative to what Meyer and others thought, to get the sugar and bases together.

NO. It does not say that. They showed that a molecule can form which is (to simplify) half-ribose and half-base.

YES, I SAID that because it is what they did. Don't blame me for your ignorance.

When I asked Joe for the quote, he informed that he was too good to provide quotes.

Dude, you are lying, again, as usual. You asked me to type out the entire page, and in the end it would have required pages to satisfy your nonsense. And nothing you have posted suggested that I lied about what was in the book. You are one demented lowlife. Joe

Diogenes, I am asking you. Will you please collect yourself and settle down. Firstly, if you are accussed of putting words in someone's mouth, and you deny it based upon what that person has written. Then the simple resolution is to post what that person has written which supports your claim. You did not do that. Instead, you simply re-asserted your personal view on what that person had written. ANY even-minded person, regardless of their position on the matter, will easily agree that this falls way below the requirement to validate your claim. Secondly, I own Meyer's book, and I have reviewed the pages in question. Nowhere on these pages does he say anything to the effect that "we had already proven that nucleotides could not be made by natural processes". All Meyers had done is point out the complications involved in the chemistry - something that origins researchers themselves have known, and have talked about in their own published works. In truth, Meyer's comments are not even controversial. The simple fact is that you have grossly misrepresented Meyer, and then attacked his character on the grounds of your own wilfull misrepresentation. There is nothing reasonable or honext about what you have done. So, why do it? It does not make your case. Upright BiPed

@Dung-

You didn’t quote anything that came even remotely close to Meyer making a prediction that it would be proven that all nucleotides could not be formed spontaneously.

Meyer said it had already been proven that all nucleotides could be formed by natural processes.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible… The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

Dung: Are the words in boldface true or false?

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

Dung: Are the words in boldface true or false? Do you know any science at all? Any? Diogenes

@Joe:

Diogenes: In fact, Meyer said we had already proven that nucleotides could not be made by natural processes.

Joe: No, he did not say such a thing and we still do not know if natural processes can do it, anyway. [#766]

NO. That is what he said.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible… The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

Diogenes

lol. Don't have a stroke D. Mung

@Joe:

...what Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, demonstrates is there is an indirect chemical pathway, ie an alternative to what Meyer and others thought, to get the sugar and bases together.

NO. It does not say that. They showed that a molecule can form which is (to simplify) half-ribose and half-base. Then other simple stuff is added to that. There's no sugar and base to "get together", so what Meyer wrote on pages 301 and 303 is false, and what Joe wrote is false. And on page 302, Meyer says that nucleotides have never been found on meteorites. Also false, lots of organic chemicals including nucleotides on Murchison meteorite. None of you have any comebacks except personal attacks and ad hominems. Diogenes

Here is what Joe wrote:

Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. Please provide the quote or admit that you made it up. [#528]

So he demands I provide a quote. If I don't provide a quote, then he says I'm lying. Now compare that to what happens when I ask Joe for a quote.

Diogenes: I don’t have a copy on hand. Since you do, please copy the text from page 303. [#536]

Joe demands that I provide a quote. If I don't provide the quote when he asks, Joe calls me a liar. But if Joe doesn't provide the quote when I ask, he's too precious and valuable. This is how he responds.

Joe: And no, I am not your secretary so I will not be wasting my time copying an entire page just so that you can see for yourself that you are FoS. [#544]

Joe: Then shut up about it because obvioulsy you don’t have a clue. [#537]

Now here's what Joe wrote.

Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. [#528]

He was lying.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible… The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

The stuff in boldface is disproven by Powner et al. 2009. That's one falsehood among many. Two pages previously:

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

The stuff in boldface is disproven by Powner et al. 2009. Joe had the book in hand. Joe read what it said. He knew what it said. Here's what Joe wrote.

Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. [#528]

You twits have no response except infantile personal attacks, ad hominems, and more lies. None of you know any science, which is bad enough, but on top of that you're pathological liars. Joe lied about what was in the book. Joe was gambling I wouldn't get the book from the libary. He lost. I can forgive people for not knowing anything about science. Hell, not everybody needs to know about science. But you people are infantile, you know nothing about science, and your only responses are personal attacks and ad hominems. When I asked Joe for the quote, he informed that he was too good to provide quotes. Joe can demand quotes from me. But I cannot demand quotes from Joe. Why? Joe would not provide the quote because he read that page, and he knew it would prove he was lying. Diogenes

diogenes predicted response to StephenB's post:

LoL! Of COURSE Meyer had to say something to save face after saying it was already proven it couldn't be done! Intervention was necessary to shorten the time as we didn't have X millions of years to wait. Geesh. There was nothing but chemistry at play and Meyer was wrong for saying it would never be accomplished. Heck 2009 the same year his book was published for Pete's sake. He had to say something to save face. Come on you know it. Infantile to the last.

Joe

Page 304:

In sum, synthesizing the building blocks of the RNA molecule under realistic prebiotic conditions has proven formidably difficult.

Just doesn't seem to capture what diogenes said. That said, what Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, demonstrates is there is an indirect chemical pathway, ie an alternative to what Meyer and others thought, to get the sugar and bases together. And it is a step towards demonstrating ribonucleotides can form under realistic prebiotic conditions. There are still difficulties in getting the purines and pyrimidine ribonucleotides together, and together long enough to form chains and even longer to find a sequence that actually does something and gets to doing it. Joe

Diogenes:

But that was disproven in 2009, right before Meyer’s book hit bookshelves, by the work of Powner et al. 2009. They showed that you can start with simple molecules and, instead of linking ribose to a base, start with a half-ribose linked to a half-base. Add some simple chemicals, and you get a full nucleotide. A little UV radiation finishes off the process, destroys the “bad” nucleotides but leaves the “good” nucleotides.

Stephen Meyer: ...."This study does partially address one, though only one, of the many outstanding difficulties associated with the RNA world scenario, the most popular current theory of the undirected chemical evolution of life. Starting with several simple chemical compounds, Powner and colleagues successfully synthesized a pyrimidine ribonucleotide, one of the building blocks of the RNA molecule. Nevertheless, this work does nothing to address the much more acute problem of explaining how the nucleotide bases in DNA or RNA acquired their specific information-rich arrangements, which is the central topic of my book. In effect, the Powner study helps explain the origin of the “letters” in the genetic text, but not their specific arrangement into functional “words” or “sentences.” Moreover, Powner and colleagues only partially addressed the problem of generating the constituent building blocks of RNA under plausible pre-biotic conditions. The problem, ironically, is their own skillful intervention. To ensure a biologically-relevant outcome, they had to intervene—repeatedly and intelligently—in their experiment: first, by selecting only the right-handed isomers of sugar that life requires; second, by purifying their reaction products at each step to prevent interfering cross-reactions; and third, by following a very precise procedure in which they carefully selected the reagents and choreographed the order in which they were introduced into the reaction series. Thus, not only does this study not address the problem of getting nucleotide bases to arrange themselves into functionally-specified sequences, but the extent to which it does succeed in producing biologically-relevant chemical constituents of RNA actually illustrates the indispensable role of intelligence in generating such chemistry........." StephenB

Diogenes:

But I was wrong to say that Meyer predicted that someday we would prove that nucleotides could not be made by natural processes.

Diogenes:

In Stephen Meyer’s risible book, he predicted it would be proven that all nucleotides could not be formed spontaneously. Meyer’s ID “predictions” were experimentally disproven by the time his book hit the bookshelves– what a maroon.

Diogenes:

Notice that not one UDite even attempted a rebuttal, or addressed the science in anyway. Personal attacks they can do.

lol. This is an ID web site. You may want to get your facts straight before posting things about what an ID author has written. Mung

diogenes:

Stephen Meyer wants to say that simple chemistry, as would exist on the primitive earth, can’t make nucleotides.

Except he doesn't say that. he says there would be obstacles and difficulties- and there would be. For example the environment for making two of the nucleotides has to be different thatn the environment to make the other two. Also it took the skill of chemists to pull it all off.

In fact, Meyer said we had already proven that nucleotides could not be made by natural processes.

No, he did not say such a thing and we still do not know if natural processes can do it, anyway. Joe

@PeterJ - Notice that not one UDite even attempted a rebuttal, or addressed the science in anyway. Personal attacks they can do. Science? Nah. No one here will explain to you what I actually wrote, because it would reveal Joe's dishonesty, and how ignorant are the authorities they trust on science. So I'll explain it to you in layman's terms. It started with my comment #516,517 above. I listed several inaccuracies in predictions made by ID advocates (and I could have listed more); one was about statements by Stephen Meyer in Signature in the Cell on nucleotides and the origin of life. Joe asked me for the page number.

Joe: Please tell me the page number of Meyer’s alleged prediction pertaining to the nucleotides. [#520]

I reply. Simple question, simple answer.

Diogenes: Page 303. [#525]

Simple, right? That's what happens when you ask an scientist a question: no drama; you get a direct answer, or else "I don't know." Now compare this to what happens when I ask a creationist a simple question.

Diogenes: I don’t have a copy on hand. Since you do, please copy the text from page 303. [#536]

This is how creationists answer a simple question.

Joe: And no, I am not your secretary so I will not be wasting my time copying an entire page just so that you can see for yourself that you are FoS. [#544]

And

Joe: Then shut up about it because obvioulsy you don’t have a clue. [#537]

Now since I have the page number, and Joe has the book, we could work together and discuss it, right? But that's not possible with infantile creationists.

Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. Please provide the quote or admit that you made it up. [#528]

It took me a couple of weeks to get to the university library, check out the book, and scan it. Here's what's on pages 301-4. Stephen Meyer wants to say that simple chemistry, as would exist on the primitive earth, can't make nucleotides. This is because most scientists believe the first self-replicating systems were RNA molecules that could copy themselves (the "RNA World") before there was DNA or proteins. And RNA is a string of nucleotides. So how could the nucleotides be made? A nucleotide looks like a ribose (that's a sugar) linked to a base molecule (the nucleobase); with a phosphate. Phosphates are common. So Meyer says no chemistry on the early earth could make nucleotides, because, he says, all nucleotides must be formed from a ribose linked to a base. Now we know that simple chemistry can make sugars (like ribose), but that chemistry won't work around nitrogenous chemicals. And you need nitrogen to make the base. So Meyer says it's been proven that no natural processes could make nucleotides. But that was disproven in 2009, right before Meyer's book hit bookshelves, by the work of Powner et al. 2009. They showed that you can start with simple molecules and, instead of linking ribose to a base, start with a half-ribose linked to a half-base. Add some simple chemicals, and you get a full nucleotide. A little UV radiation finishes off the process, destroys the "bad" nucleotides but leaves the "good" nucleotides. So Meyer's statements on this (which I quoted above) and many other topics were factually false. But I was wrong to say that Meyer predicted that someday we would prove that nucleotides could not be made by natural processes. In fact, Meyer said we had already proven that nucleotides could not be made by natural processes. This was false. Nature 459, 239-242 2009. Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland. Diogenes

Thanks UB, Mung and Joe. I understand. He's what is called where I come from 'at it' :o) An interesting link on ENV. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6102/1628.abstract "Digital information is accumulating at an astounding rate, straining our ability to store and archive it. DNA is among the most dense and stable information media known. The development of new technologies in both DNA synthesis and sequencing make DNA an increasingly feasible digital storage medium. We developed a strategy to encode arbitrary digital information in DNA, wrote a 5.27-megabit book using DNA microchips, and read the book by using next-generation DNA sequencing." I wonder what Onlooker would make of the use of the word 'Arbitrary' in this context? ;o) PeterJ

But can someone please point out, in laymans terms, why he is mistaken?

Yes, I can. One person didn't like what another person was saying. So he assigned something to that person that the person didn't say - then attacked it. It's a common tactic. It's used as a vehicle to demonize the person and argument you don't want to hear. This thread has been rich with it. Upright BiPed

So he took out his knife and cut everybody up and left.

It felt like a spoon, and look, no cuts! But I am sure in his mind we are all in pieces... Joe

UB: Yes, I can. He performed a drive-by. I was of the opinion that Diogene's wasn't perhaps understanding Meyers. But can someone please point out, in laymans terms, why he is mistaken? Thanks. PeterJ

Can someone please give an explanation for Diogene’s claims at #750.

Yes, I can. He performed a drive-by. He really doesn't like the argument in the OP and he's mad at me for making it. He also hates Joe, Mung, and Steven Meyer. So he took out his knife and cut everybody up and left. He'll probably be back later. Upright BiPed

Diogenes, YOU have serious integrity issues:

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

Nope, that doesn't support your claim.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible…

Nope, that doesn't support your claim.

The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA.

Not ONE prediction that all nucleotides could not form. Just Meyer pointing out obstacles and difficulties. That said having all nucleotides form in a lab under different conditions- not all form under the same conditions- is not the same as having all nucleotides form in nature. PS- Thanks Mung Joe

Can someone please give an explanation for Diogene's claims at #750. Thanks. PeterJ

b.s. + bluster = diogenes Mung

Upright BiPed, You failed to represent "apple" mathematically. Mung

Diogenes,

Answer the question. Stop pretending like you don’t know what it means. As Onlooker has made very clear, you have slipped in the phrase “context specific” without defining what “context specific” means. We want a clear definition of that

So you would like me to explain “context specific” in terms of the relationship between a representation and its effect within a system? Okay. A representation must operate in a “specific context” (i.e. in a specific system) in order to result in its effect. Otherwise, there will be no relationship between the representation and its effect. The existence of the relationship (between representation and effect) is therefore specific to a system (i.e. "context specific"). For instance, the English word “apple” is a representation that operates in a system of English-speaking humans beings, but it means absolutely nothing whatsoever to earthworms or turtles or bacteria. This seems to be a rather simple concept to understand, leaving virtually nothing to question regarding its meaning. Upright BiPed

2 + 2 = 4. Therefore, two sheep plus two sheep causes four sheep. haha. the captcha question was [] + 2 = four what are the odds of that!? Mung

Diogenes:

In Stephen Meyer’s risible book, he predicted it would be proven that all nucleotides could not be formed spontaneously...Later I cited, specifically, page 303.

Meyer makes no predictions on page 303. That makes Joe right and you wrong. Care to try again? Diogenes:

Please copy in page 303. What are you hiding?

Meyer makes no predictions on page 303. That makes Joe right and you wrong. No need to hide anything. Diogenes:

Let’s check out Signature in the Cell, pages 301 to 303.

Well, there's no prediction on page 303, even though you asserted quite strongly that there was. So now what, it's on page 301 0r 302? Which? Both? You didn't quote anything that came even remotely close to Meyer making a prediction that it would be proven that all nucleotides could not be formed spontaneously. Mung

2 + 2 = 4. Therefore, two plus two causes four. Mung

Diogenes:

UB says “representation” is something that “evokes” an effect within a system. So it’s a cause.

fail Mung

@Joe - Remember what I wrote about Stephen Meyer's falsified prediction in Signature in the Cell? Remember Joe, how you lied about what was in the book? Me: In Stephen Meyer’s risible book, he predicted it would be proven that all nucleotides could not be formed spontaneously. Meyer’s ID “predictions” were experimentally disproven by the time his book hit the bookshelves... Later I cited, specifically, page 303. Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. Please provide the quote or admit that you made it up. I didn't have the book then. So you thought you could get away with lying to me, like a typical creationist. Me: I don’t have a copy on hand. Joe: Then shut up about it because obvioulsy you don’t have a clue But I just scanned the book, Joe. Are you going to stand behind your statements, Joe? You gonna double down on that, little doggie? You had the book then, Joe. You lied about its contents, which is why you wouldn't quote it. Me: Please copy in page 303. What are you hiding? Joe: And no, I am not your secretary so I will not be wasting my time copying an entire page just so that you can see for yourself that you are FoS. No, Joe couldn't scan one darn page from that book, couldn't do OCR because he was lying like a typical creationist. Now you see what it's like arguing with creationists. I scanned the book, Joe, so I know you were lying about what was on page 303. You gonna double down on that, little doggie? Let's check out Signature in the Cell, pages 301 to 303. Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301] Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible... The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303] Again, experimentally disproven. Now you see what it's like arguing with creationists. They're not just liars, but childish and infantile liars. Also their predictions are experimentally disproven, but on top of that, they're freaking INFANTILE. Diogenes

748 Comments and the Argument in the OP is disproven. Now I'm going to make a guess at what UB means by "context specific". Probably he'll accuse me of putting words in his mouth blah blah and say that's not his meaning. But somebody around here has to make stuff mathematical. UB isn't and Joe and Mung the stupid parrot can't. So here's my guess. UB says "representation" is something that "evokes" an effect within a system. So it's a cause. I don't know what's the difference between "causing" an effect and "evoking" an effect and I'm tired of UB's waffle words. We know UB means "cause" so I'm calling it a cause. Let's call the set of causes Ci, where i = 1,... up to some number of possible states. Now if C means a codon triplet, then i would go from 1 to 64. Now you have a system, meaning: cause yields effect via an adapter or set of adapters. Ci * {A} --> Ej Here the Adapters "instantiate" the "protocol" (yargh, more bafflegab) so they're tRNA's. The Effect is an amino acid Ej, where j = 1,... 20. In the real world there are 64 codons and 20 amino acids, and the system is degenerate. Contra what UB writes, the genetic system does not transfer information. The genetic system is degenerate, it copies information partially into a different form but, LOSING information along the way. It's a lossy system. Now we all know about 64 codons and 20 amino acids, but for simplicity I'm going to limit us to single nucleotides a,g,c,u so i = 1 to 4, and just two amino acids, j = 1..2. So C is a 4-vector and E is a 2-vector and the Adaptor is a 2x4 matrix. Let's say that in our simple genetic code, the purines yield Asp and the pyrimidines yield Lys. So if Ci is [ a] [ g] [ c] [ u] And Ej is [D K] Then the Adaptor would be a 2x4 matrix [1 1 0 0] [0 0 1 1] Where Ej = A * Ci. Now here is where "context" and "arbitrary" comes in. The Adapter is a set of tRNA's, and the their anticodons could (theoretically) be linked to a variety of amino acids. Different SETS of tRNA's would yield different matrices. The matrix I wrote down is just one among many imaginable. That's where "arbitary" comes in: "Arbitrary" means A is one matrix among many possible -- THEORETICALLY but maybe not experimentally in practice!. However, all the matrices like A must obey certain mathematical rules. Within those rules, many are still possible, at least theoretically (probably some are forbidden by the laws of physics.) If you have an deterministic, error-free protocol, then each COLUMN of A must have a 1 and a 0. If you have a protocol that's not deterministic, or full of errors, then you could maybe have a column that has fractional entries. [0.9 1 0 0.2] [0.1 0 1 0.8] Get it? That matrix makes translation errors. By "context" we must mean a set of tRNA's that define the columns in a particular matrix. IF the laws of physics permit the anticodons in each conceivable tRNA to bind to any amino acid (Big If!), then all matrices are possible-- so long as the entries in each column add up to 1. By "not fixed by inexorable laws", we are ASSUMING (big assumption) that there exists a "null state", or "natural state", or "primordial state" (whatever you want to call it) where the laws of physics would cause each anticodon in each conceivable tRNA to bind EQUALLY to each amino acid. This "null state" would be defined by a "null adaptor", let's call it A0: A0 = [0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5] [0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5] So that's how I'd define "not fixed by inexorable laws". What's so darn confusing about UB's posts is that, when he talks about "context" and "inexorable laws" etc., UB is implicitly assuming a "null state" in which the laws of physcis demand that each anticodon bind equally to each amino acid. This "null state" is implicit in UB's ideas of "context" and "deterministic", etc. but UB does not spell out the "null state", which must first 1. be defined 2. be proven experimentally to exist and in accordance with the laws of physics. But UB didn't define it; and he just ASSUMED that the laws of physics could make a matrix like A0 above. Anyway, it's not possible. I cited papers above which show that anticodons bind preferentially to certain amino acids, so experiment shows that the null state A0 that I defined above is NOT produced by the laws of physics. UB assumed it but did not prove it exists. See: RNA riboswitches bind amino acids: Yarus et al. (Yarus M, Widmann JJ, Knight R, 2009, RNA–Amino Acid Binding: A Stereochemical Era for the Genetic Code, J Mol Evol 69:406–429. See Also: Imprints of the genetic code in the ribosome. D.B.F. Johnson, Lei Wang. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Apr 12. The fact that UB implicitly invokes a null state or "null context" when he talks about "context specific" is confusing as heck to Onlooker and everyone who knows math or molecular biology. Again: 748 Comments and the Argument is disproven. Diogenes

Yeah defining words using dictionaries is for chumps. And no, my post in 691 does not say the fix is in. If someone just anted up and demonstrated that necessity and chance are up to the task then UB's argument falls. Joe

I want representation! - Diogenes lol. Mung

UB, Answer the question. Stop pretending like you don't know what it means. As Onlooker has made very clear, you have slipped in the phrase "context specific" without defining what "context specific" means. We want a clear definition of that. This is the whole problem with ID pseudomath. ID pseudomath and bafflegab is filled with terms like "specification" (Dembski) and, in this thread, "representation", "information", "form of a thing", "transfer", "protocol", "context" etc. etc. which are deliberately vaguely defined. The trick is obvious right from the OP. UB only defines these words by 1. Defining words in terms of other words that aren't themselves defined. 1a. e.g. information is "form of a thing". What the hell is "form of a thing"? How do you measure how much "form" is produced by a process? My footprint is in the form of my foot. Don't natural processes produces forms of things, thus, information, in vast quantities? 1.b. "Arbitrary" defined as: "The relationship between the representation and its effect was unambiguously defined as context specific..." Well what's context specific? 2. UB's other way of defining terms is by listing examples, right there in the OP, so the fix is in from the beginning. UB only lists examples which include artificial constructs, like human language, plus DNA/genetic code/ biological things. Nothing that might be produced by natural processes. To exclude these, UB leaves words vaguely defined so that he and Joe can arbitrarily exclude everything that results from natural processes. Argument from authority. If UB precisely defined his terms, a counter-example of representation, form, protocol, information, effect, etc. could always be found that consists of observed natural processes. But Joe in comment #691 tips us off that the fix is in. They're going to exclude all natural counter-examples ("chance and necessity"-- more cultist bafflegab!), so all "semiotic" terminology must be re-defined on the fly by the hierophants of ID. That way, everything boils down to argument from authority. So if UB defines a word in terms of other things that are not defined ("form of a thing"), or defines thing by listing examples that exclude natural processes, then they hold on to rhetorical wiggle room to exclude counter-examples. Onlooker: Thank you for putting forward your own definition. This is the first I remember you using the idea of “context specific within a system”. It sounds like my other proposed definition might be closer to what you are trying to express: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Is that what you mean by context specific connections? If not, could you please give an example of a context specific connection? Unlike Onlooker, I don't want an "example" of a context specific connection. Defining things by examples is the whole problem here. I want it defined in mathematical language, not by examples. I want representation as a vector, protocol as a matrix, different contexts as different matrices, effect as a vector, etc. The OP here is aping a mathematical proof. Alas, neither UB nor Joe nor the stupid parrot Mung sitting on Joe's shoulder seem to understand how mathematical proofs need terms to be precisely defined, NOT defined by examples! Diogenes

She's got you pegged Upright BiPed: incoherently erudite. Mung

Onlooker, A precise definition of “arbitrary” was given on this thread on August 23rd. The relationship between the representation and its effect was unambiguously defined as context specific and not established by inexorable law. Any attempt to define a thing in an unambiguous manner, necessarily depends on the ability to establish a unique identifying characteristic (or characteristics) which separates that thing from other things. The unique identifying characteristic of the relationship between a representation and its effect is that the relationship is "not established by inexorable law" and is "context specific". There is no ambiguity in that definition (i.e. either the relationship is reducible to law in any context, or it’s not). As with your previous attempts to add imprecision to the argument, I do not accept your definition. Your rhetorical victory is at hand. Upright BiPed

onlooker, If this really shouldn't be like pulling teeth, then why are YOU making it so? And please define every one of your words so that we can understand what it is you are trying to say to Upright Biped. Perhaps by doing so you will see, as all objective onlookers do, that you are being just a tad absurd in your complaints. Joe

Upright BiPed,

You were given a precise definition of "arbitrary" as used in the statement: "the relationship between a representation and its effect within the system is materially arbitrary". It first appeared seven hundred and twenty-eight comments ago, on August 23rd. The relationship between the representation and the effect was defined as context specific and not established by inexorable law.

I will quote myself from comment 658, since you have not yet responded with any real content to that:

Thank you for putting forward your own definition. This is the first I remember you using the idea of "context specific within a system". It sounds like my other proposed definition might be closer to what you are trying to express: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Is that what you mean by context specific connections? If not, could you please give an example of a context specific connection?

So, could you? This really shouldn't be like pulling teeth. Either you know what you mean or you are just babbling incoherently in an attempt to sound erudite without any real meat to your argument. As it stands, your continued refusal to engage in discussion in good faith supports the latter hypothesis. Either clarify your argument or admit that you can't and stop using it. Anything else is intellectually dishonest. onlooker

So enjoy your rhetorical victory over physical evidence. You have gained the intellectual equivalent of saddles on dinosaurs.

Mung

Onlooker, You poor thing. You were given a precise definition of “arbitrary” as used in the statement: “the relationship between a representation and its effect within the system is materially arbitrary". It first appeared seven hundred and twenty-eight comments ago, on August 23rd. The relationship between the representation and the effect was defined as context specific and not established by inexorable law. The fact that is it precise in its usage is the very reason you must call it imprecise and run from it. In fact, this has been the entire issue all along. Your problem, and the problem of those around you at TSZ, is that my definitions of the objects within my argument are defined entirely by their material existence, and therefore those definitions don't leave you the rhetorical wiggle room you are so fond of. I use a descriptive word like "representation", but I define it specifically as an arrangement of matter that evokes an effect within a system. I then use a word like “protocol”, but I define it as an arrangement of matter that materially establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between a representation and its effect. I use a word like “evoke” to describe the action a representation has within the system, but I clearly differentiate it from the action of a protocol, which physically determines what the effect will be. You are left with a coherent observation of a system in operation, with each complimentary action clearly defined. You simply cannot handle it, and as a very common human consequence, you run your mouth instead. So enjoy your rhetorical victory over physical evidence. You have gained the intellectual equivalent of saddles on dinosaurs. Upright BiPed

onlooker:

I asked for a precise definition.

Please give us a precise definition of a precise definition. A way to measure just how precise it is would also be useful. After all, how are we to know that you haven't already been given a precise definition and just arbitrarily dismissed it? onlooker:

I used yours to come up with two possibilities: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations.

What makes these definitions of yours precise definitions and the definition offered by UPB not precise? Your arbitrary say so? Do any of the dictionary definitions of arbitrary meet your standard for a precise definition? Has it occurred to you that by the mere fact that you have given two (or is it three) definitions of your own, you've established that none of them are precise?

We’re over 700 comments into this discussion...

...and you're still making a fool of yourself. grats. That takes some dedication to playing the fool. Mung

Upright Biped, Did you miss me? Please excuse my absence over the weekend -- I seem to have briefly possessed an offline life. Don't worry, I don't expect that to happen again soon.

Onlooker: As I’ve stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim. I have been trying to get a precise definition of what you mean by "arbitrary" in order to be able to parse this, but you are remarkably resistent to providing that.

. . . . . So… I cannot give you an example in order to clarify "arbitrary":

UB: Let’s say you take the genetic symbol C-T-A and put it in your pocket for safe keeping. And tomorrow, you will…

I asked for a precise definition. Examples are fine to help arrive at such a definition, and I used yours to come up with two possibilities: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. You have yet to accept either one or offer a precise one of your own. You use the word repeatedly in your argument and it appears to be important to whatever it is you are trying to convey, so one could reasonably expect that you have a definition in mind. What is it?

And I cannot get you to give me an example of your understanding in order to clarify "arbitrary":

UB: Tell me exactly, in specific language, what you do not understand

I told you quite clearly what I don't understand. Here is the relevant text again:

Tell me exactly, in specific language, what you do not understand about the bolded text. If you can articulate your problem, then I can answer you.

That would be refreshing. Here is the bolded text, for easy reference:

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

As I've stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim. I have been trying to get a precise definition of what you mean by "arbitrary" in order to be able to parse this, but you are remarkably resistent to providing that. I am therefore asking you to rephrase this, preferably in a clear and concise format, to make it clear what you are trying to say. keiths gave an excellent example of how to lay out an argument over at TSZ. You could do worse than to emulate that.

Please explain exactly what you are trying to convey. If your restatement includes the word "arbitrary", please provide a precise definition of exactly what you mean by it when you are using it in this particular claim and argument.

And at the same time, you’ll acknowledge a clarification of “arbitrary” in one post, but then forget it in the next:

UB: There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are "materially arbitrary". Onlooker: Thank you for putting forward your own definition

Interesting place to cut out context. Here's the full text (obviously available to anyone reading this thread):

Thank you for putting forward your own definition. This is the first I remember you using the idea of "context specific within a system". It sounds like my other proposed definition might be closer to what you are trying to express: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Is that what you mean by context specific connections? If not, could you please give an example of a context specific connection?

I note that you yet again chose not to address the direct questions I have posed, preferring instead to cut bits and pieces from my comments and avoid any real discussion of your argument. I think keiths' comment from The Skeptical Zone bears repeating again:

You, on the other hand, seem ashamed of your argument and afraid of what might happen if you stated it clearly and explicitly. Instead of clarifying, you obfuscate. Instead of answering questions straightforwardly, you evade them. You complain that others are misrepresenting your position, but when they ask you for correction, you refuse to give it. Then you declare victory, saying that no one has defeated your argument! For you, the entire exercise seems to be more about saving face than it is about communicating your ideas. In fact, you appear to be deliberately avoiding communication precisely in order to save face. Why should anyone take your argument seriously if you are so ashamed of it? Why are you afraid to communicate it in a way that your audience will actually understand?

We're over 700 comments into this discussion and you have still refused to explain your argument, despite repeated, explicit requests and direct questions explaining the areas of confusion. It's time to show some intellectual integrity and confidence in your argument. If you don't take it seriously enough to explain it clearly, there's no rason for anyone else to consider it as anything but creationist bafflegab. onlooker

To the TSZ ilk still reading this- You still don't have any evidence to support your position, meaning taht you could NOT come up with any argument for your position. And that bothers you so much that you are forced to lash out at your opponents who actually have the stuff to put forth a positive argument. Evidence is the only thing that will refute UB and evidence is the very thing your position lacks. 1- There isn't any evidence that the first living organisms were more simple, ie did not require proteins to make proteins 2- There isn't any evidence for a RNA world 3- There isn't any evidence that self-replicating macro-molecules can arise via blind and undiorected chemical processes 4- There isn't any evidence that replicating macro-molecules can evolve into something else You have absolutely nothing and it bothers you. Life is good... Joe

And should we just write it of to pure dumb luck that the very system itself just happens to be one via which evolution can take place? Mung

After two days of silence, it would appear that Onlooker has abandoned the pretense of not understanding the words. His participation was a farce from the start. He began with "I think you deserve a lot of credit for discussing your argument in what, despite Lizzie’s best efforts, could easily be considered a hostile venue. " and ended with "you have nothing but incoherent word salad that you refuse to clarify out of fear that your position might be refuted". Between the two he ignored all the definitions and refused all the examples. From Onlooker, there was never going to be a refutation. The transfer of recorded information requires an irreducible core of two arrangements of matter; one which evokes an effect within a system by virtue of its arrangement (which is materially abitrary to the effect it evokes), and a second arrangement which must materially establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its effect. This observed reality indicates that the transfer of biological information is not only the oldest and most prodigious form of irreducible complexity on Earth, but is the very thing required for Darwinian evolution to even exist. Upright BiPed

LoL! "R0b" used arbitrary in the standard way but they could not tell that UB was doing so because of the way he uses the word "information". Here ya go keiths- information as a thing So the bottom line is the ilk from the TSZ are not as educated as they want us to believe and they think their ignorance refutes ID. Joe

onlooker banned from UD (sort of):

(Added in edit 27/09/2012 – just to clarify, onlooker was banned from threads hosted by “kairosfocus” and can still post at Uncommon Descent in threads not authored by “kairosfocus”)

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1296 Yet another lie emanating from TSZ. kf has not banned anyone. I question whether kf even has the power to ban someone. Mung

Mung, "In one of many possible configurations" is a gamepiece, not a definition. It has nothing to do with clarity, and everything to do with playability. That's why I didn't respond to it. Upright BiPed

Hey UBP: Just to be clear, I despise "In one configuration of many possible configurations" as a definition of arbitrary. I think a system can be in one of many possible configurations as a result of natural law, I am just trying to think of an appropriate system. That's why I introduced thermodynamics. I'm also open to the idea that onlooker may be attempting to equivocate. The position of any particular molecule may not be determined, but the distribution of the molecules is determined. Mung

#726 A Rubiks cube as an analogy of a representation? Not bad. The arrangement of a Rubiks cube does not exist as it does as a matter of law - and neither do vast numbers of representations. But not all representations are rate-independent arrangements; our senses are all from lawful transcriptions. However all representational arrangements are arbitrary to their effects, and the cube analogy works in that scenario. Upright BiPed

I'm going to duck that last comment. Mung

Something arbitrary is something done at random, on a whim, not out of a necessity, whether, logical or physical. For example, if there are 10 ducks in the lake, and I pick one at random to shoot, my choice was "arbitrary." Nothing necessitated shooting any *particular* duck. The net effect was the same no matter which duck got shot: one dead duck, nine living ducks, and a nice Sunday duck dinner. Clear? Alright. CentralScrutinizer

yeah, I'm sure his words smell good better than mine Upright BiPed

D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations.

I don't mind admitting that I've been scratching my head over this one looking for some good and relevant analogies. A Rubik's Cube perhaps? There are many possible configurations, though a limited number of configurations. Is the fact that the Rubik's Cube is in one configuration of many possible configurations a good example? Maybe there is nothing at all arbitrary about the particular configuration it is in. Diffusion? Is the fact that a system can be in numerous configurations evidence of the arbitrary nature of the second law of thermodynamics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics Mung

I'm thinking that perhaps the word 'arbitrary' smelled different coming from him than it did coming from you. Perhaps the meaning of the word arbitrary is itself arbitrary, in certain contexts. Mung

You mean they grasped the meaning of arbitrary?

Actually I read R0b's article over there a few days ago and he repeatedly used the word "arbitrary". As crazy as it sounds, I didn't see anyone asking what the heck he meant by "arbitrary". Maybe thats why they needed me to explain it to 'em - so they'd know what he was talking about. yeah, thats it Upright BiPed

ok, going to give away the candy store here. You mean they grasped the meaning of arbitrary? I don't suppose onlooker was anywhere around back then, asking them to define what they meant by arbitrary. That would be too much to hope for. Yet another nail in the coffin of the "poor me, i don't understand arbitrary" bulls**t. Mung

Ah, they already played that card at TSZ: THE REPESENTATIONS ALWAYS RESULT IN THE EFFECTS!!!! THEY ARE ANYTHING BUT ARBITRARY!!!! STUPID IDOT Upright BiPed

I sure hope onlooker isn't busy re-arranging the keys on her keyboard just to put my claims to the test. Can you imagine what we're likely to see from her next? I really expected something along the following lines: But suppose your keyboard is assembled by some mechanical process, and that process determines which key will be connected to which post. Does it not follow that the arrangement of the keys on the keyboard is not arbitrary? But maybe I'm giving onlooker too much credit. Mung

My dog digs holes without a shovel- she uses the front paw full-on frontal attack the ground mechanism. And she likes that mechanism because she is smiling the (w)hole time Joe

The shovel mechanism? Is that a designed mechanism? And if we came along after Bob left, along with his shovel, we'd say natural causes is what caused that hole and look for some natural hole causing mechanism. Meanwhile, Bob is laughing his tail off. In fact, we could see a long line of hole diggers with shovels digging holes and come to Bob's hole and still say it was natural causes cause we don't see any hold digger there. Mung

Joe, if we see a construction worker digging a hole and I ask you what “mechanism” he is using to dig that hole, would you answer ” a shovel” or “Bob”?

The point would be what if we didn't see him/ her, then what? What if we didn't see anything beyond the finished product, ie the building? As I keep telling you we have enough problems trying to figure out how people who lived thousands of years ago did what they did, and what they did is within our capabilities. So again: That is what science is for. However we can say it was via some means that are obviously beyond our current capabilities. But we don’t have to know that before coming to design inference. Ya see we already know your position’s proposed mechanisms are not up to the task. So we have to move on and go with known mechanisms capable of producing dFSCI. Now what part of that don’t you understand? Please be specific. Or continue to prove that you are a coward by avoiding that... Joe

“The entire population needs evos to start providing positive evidence for their position but that ain’t happening. “

How can you possibly say that when I’ve just asked you for positive evidence for *your* position and you’ve refused to give it?

I can say that because I and others have provided plenty of evidence for our position and you chumps can't even produce a testable hypothesis for yours.

You haven’t provided a mechanism,

Your ignorance is not a refutation. Obvioulsy you don't know what a mechanism is and your position cannot provide anything beyond bald assertion for a mechanism. So until you guys start putting up perhaps you should stop your whining. Joe

Upright BiPed:

I told you upfront that “This argument was clipped from a simple blog comment written in conversational English, then numbered and presented here.”

Wikipedia:

Informal arguments are sometimes implicit. That is, the logical structure –the relationship of claims, premises, warrants, relations of implication, and conclusion –is not always spelled out and immediately visible and must sometimes be made explicit by analysis.

Mung

Nick,

Stating that your argument was amateurishly formed was an observation. Are you arguing that it actually is formally laid out, which is what you’d expect to have when presented with a challenge to determine the validity or soundness of an argument?

I told you upfront that “This argument was clipped from a simple blog comment written in conversational English, then numbered and presented here.”

If you can’t take the time to clearly indicate your premises and the logical flow from statement to statement, you can’t expect others to take the time to do that for you.

I might say the same thing. If you can’t take the time to orient yourself to the conversation, then why should I accept your criticism of the observations or the logic? Or are you simply suggesting that the only valid arguments are those that require no questions, comments, or clarifications?

Where does this appear previously in your argument? Why is it the case that the first arrangement cannot determine what the effect will be?

The roles of the representations and protocols are clearly stated in the argument. If the representation requires the protocol to establish a relationship that otherwise does not exist between the representation and the effect, then it is a lack of comprehension to ask why the representation cannot determine the effect, or why the protocol is necessary.

Since you brought up “apple” and an apple: In Old English, “aeppel” was the representation of an apple. So in what way is the representation and protocol, to use your words, irreducibly complex?

The word “apple” cannot evoke the cognitive image of a particular fruit if there is no protocol establishing that it represents the red fruit with the white center and the little black seeds. On the other hand, if that protocol exists but there is no representation “apple”, then that protocol is meaningless. Both must exist in order to transfer recorded information. The fact that the word “apple” can represent an apple, as well as the words aeppel, appel, aeble, and äpple, simply demonstrates the fact that relationship between the representation and its effect is materially arbitrary (i.e. context specific, not bound by inexorable law) requiring a protocol to establish the relationship. Upright BiPed

If you can’t take the time to clearly indicate your premises and the logical flow from statement to statement, you can’t expect others to take the time to do that for you.

And yet you don't seem to feel obligated to put everything you write into syllogisms.

... you can’t expect others to take the time to do that for you.

Sure he can. You and onlooker are the ones being entirely unreasonable here. If that's the only way you can understand an argument, to have it put into a specific form, then go about it yourself. Mung

Admins: Why isn’t there an edit function?

Some of us appreciate the constant reminder that we're human. ;) Mung

UB: Stating that your argument was amateurishly formed was an observation. Are you arguing that it actually is formally laid out, which is what you'd expect to have when presented with a challenge to determine the validity or soundness of an argument? If you can't take the time to clearly indicate your premises and the logical flow from statement to statement, you can't expect others to take the time to do that for you. Case in point:

Because the first arrngement can only evoke an effect within a system, but it cannot determine what that effect will be.

Where does this appear previously in your argument? Why is it the case that the first arrangement cannot determine what the effect will be? This is why it would be very helpful, both to you and to others, if you formalized your argument. You wouldn't have left anything out. Since you brought up "apple" and an apple: In Old English, "aeppel" was the representation of an apple. So in what way is the representation and protocol, to use your words, irreducibly complex? BioTurboNick

Onlooker, You have now doubled back upon yourself.

Onlooker: As I’ve stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim. I have been trying to get a precise definition of what you mean by “arbitrary” in order to be able to parse this, but you are remarkably resistent to providing that.

. . . . . So... I cannot give you an example in order to clarify “arbitrary”:

UB: Let’s say you take the genetic symbol C-T-A and put it in your pocket for safe keeping. And tomorrow, you will…

And I cannot get you to give me an example of your understanding in order to clarify “arbitrary”:

UB: Tell me exactly, in specific language, what you do not understand …

And at the same time, you’ll acknowledge a clarification of “arbitrary” in one post, but then forget it in the next:

UB: There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are “materially arbitrary”. Onlooker: Thank you for putting forward your own definition

. . . . So you'll accept no examples, you'll give no examples, and you'll first acknowledge then ignore the definition given. Do your demonstrated actions comport more to a person seeking an genuine understanding, or a person seeking a rhetorical position? Upright BiPed

Toronto: What is a mechanism we can use to calculate the length of an object. Joe: The mechanism is “intelligent agency”. Toronto: No, I need to know the length in some sort of units.

Nobody cares what you, an intellectual coward and strawman maker needs, toronto. The entire population needs evos to start providing positive evidence for their position but that ain't happening. Joe

You seem to think you’ve given me the answer to the question I asked but you haven’t.

Yes, I have. Just because you are too stupid to understand it does NOT mean it wasn't given. Here it is again for you to choke on: That is what science is for. However we can say it was via some means that are obviously beyond our current capabilities. But we don’t have to know that before coming to design inference. Ya see we already know your position’s proposed mechanisms are not up to the task. So we have to move on and go with known mechanisms capable of producing dFSCI. Now what part of that don't you understand? Please be specific. Joe

That onlooker refers to keiths proves that it is NOT interested in a fruitful discussion. Note to onlooker- keiths does not know how to lay out an argument. And BTW if you cannot look in a dictionary to find the definition of arbitrary that fits- ie that enables you to parse UB's statement, then you are a wste of time. Joe

Upright BiPed,

In your 658 you thanked me for a further definition of arbitrary, then turned right around and asked me about arbitrary.

To save you the effort of scrolling back up, here's what I said:

Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are "materially arbitrary".

Thank you for putting forward your own definition. This is the first I remember you using the idea of "context specific within a system". It sounds like my other proposed definition might be closer to what you are trying to express: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Is that what you mean by context specific connections? If not, could you please give an example of a context specific connection?

I clearly asked you detailed questions about the additional terms you added and requested clarification of your meaning. Please provide it.

Tell me exactly, in specific language, what you do not understand about the bolded text. If you can articulate your problem, then I can answer you.

That would be refreshing. Here is the bolded text, for easy reference:

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

As I've stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim. I have been trying to get a precise definition of what you mean by "arbitrary" in order to be able to parse this, but you are remarkably resistent to providing that. I am therefore asking you to rephrase this, preferably in a clear and concise format, to make it clear what you are trying to say. keiths gave an excellent example of how to lay out an argument over at TSZ. You could do worse than to emulate that. onlooker

Nick, As for my tone; consider that these are your very first words on this forum.

I’m obviously not going to be able to read through 609 comments. I will say this, however: This argument is amateurishly formed.

You then demonstrated that you carelessly mis-read the text, because the text said nothing like your reading of it. If you have questions, just ask. Upright BiPed

Nick The text you bolded tells you that there is an arrangment of matter, and an effect it evokes. It also tells you that something else (a second arrangement of matter) is required to establish the relationship between the representation and the effect. It goes nowhere near the idea that the “second arrangement is able to “evoke an effect”, but the first arrangement is not”.

The first arrangement requires a second arrangement to mediate the effect. Is that not what this point is claiming? Why, exactly, would a second arrangement of matter be necessary, if the first arrangement was sufficient to evoke the an effect?

Because the first arrngement can only evoke an effect within a system, but it cannot determine what that effect will be. It requires a second arangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its effect. Nick, there is actually nothing difficult to understand here. When recorded information is transfrred, it is not the thing (the information is about) being transferred. It is only the form of that thing. That is what inform-ation is; the form of a thing instantiated in a material medium, which will evoke an effect within a system. To instantiate the form of a thing in a material medium requires a represenation of that form. That representation of form must be recorded into that material medium by the arrangement of the medium. This is not only an empirical reality in a material universe, it is also a logical necessity. If you grasp this essential understanding, then the entire remainder of my argument flows from it – because it has to. When I write the word "apple" on a piece of paper, the moment I finish writing the word it does not suddenly become the cognitive image of a particular fruit – it's still just a piece of paper with some markings on it (i.e. it is still just the form of a thing). For that representation to successfully result in the cognitive effect, it will require a second arrangement of matter (a material protocol) capable of causing that effect. In this case, that second arrangement of matter is a neural pattern in the brain of the person who reads the word. That material protocol must establish the relationship between the markings on the paper and their resulting effect. Try re-reading the argument with that in mind, and I will answer any questions you have. Upright BiPed

Pardon the screwed up formatting. Admins: Why isn't there an edit function? CentralScrutinizer

703, "Why, exactly, would a second arrangement of matter be necessary, if the first arrangement was sufficient to evoke the an effect?"</blockquote? It wouldn't be necessary if there was no transmitter that "expects" a receiver. And by "expect" I mean the transmitter wouldn't have any reason to possess the arrangement in the first place, if the receiver did not exist to receive it. I makes no sense to write a book if nobody is expected to read it. Books exist because the writer intends them to be read.

CentralScrutinizer

"...ignore the impressively..." "...evoke the effect?" BioTurboNick

UB:

For instance, I could very easily ask you to cut and paste my words and specifically bold the text which makes you think I said that the “second arrangement is able to “evoke an effect”, but the first arrangement is not”.

I'll ignore impressively condescending tone and humor you.

5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes.

The first arrangement requires a second arrangement to mediate the effect. Is that not what this point is claiming? Why, exactly, would a second arrangement of matter be necessary, if the first arrangement was sufficient to evoke the an effect? BioTurboNick

No one has come close to refuting UB’s thesis after 699 comments. Frankly, they have given up even trying. Better to attack the argument as being incomprehensible. BioTurboNick:

Why are you trying to prove that genome is like other information?

How many ‘types’ of information are there? Mung

Nick, if you do not find it in your better senses to accept my offer, then simply cut and paste my words and specifically bold the text which makes you think I said that the “second arrangement is able to “evoke an effect”, but the first arrangement is not”. Upright BiPed

Nick, please allow me to be more charitable to you than you have been to me thus far. I am sure you are a smart guy and all...and I am sure there are things in this world that you are good at. But I simply cannot take your comments seriously. You clearly demonstrate that you do not have the reading comprehension skills required to participate in this conversation. And I do not say this without good reason. I know you'll want to blame me for any misunderstanding you have (since that has been your lead narrative), but this is simply not the case. For instance, I could very easily ask you to cut and paste my words and specifically bold the text which makes you think I said that the "second arrangement is able to “evoke an effect”, but the first arrangement is not". I already know that you cannot do this without making yourself look silly. And that was your only first airball, the remainder of your comments go down hill from there. So I think I'll charitably refrain. If you should care to apply yourself more fully, then perhaps I will engage you after you've demonstrated the ability to form a coherent statement actually related to the argument. Upright BiPed

...yet the wider court of scientific opinion is utterly silent on the matter of ‘semiosis’.

lol. Did someone over at TSZ write this? I just got a new book yesterday on Information and Computation. Chapter 1: Cybersemiotics and the Question of Knowledge Google returns 317,000 results for semiosis. Biosemiotics returns 621,000. Try a search on Google Scholar as well. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3821216199ptv34/ Mung

I did not claim to be rebutting anything

then leave

So, will you present a more clearly-formed argument, a syllogism, so that we can discuss the contents clearly?

I'm sorry, we can't grok what you're going on about. Please put your argument in the form of a syllogism. Mung

Toronto, Don't ignore what I say and then keep asking the same thing. That is a sure sign of a belligerent little child. Joe

This argument was clipped from a simple blog comment written in conversational English, then numbered and presented here. It is the content of the argument that is at issue. You are not capable of refuting the content of the argument (or you would have done so) and your opinion of it formation will not help you in that regard. [...] If you have the ability to actually articulate with specifics (instead of assertions) as to why you cannot follow the logic (and where leaps are taken), then I will be happy to address your concerns. Until then, may I say that your attempted rebuttal is amateurishly formed. It specifically addresses not a single word, phrase, or concept in the argument, and therefore provides absolutely nothing of value.

Are you literate? I ask this seriously, because I did not claim to be rebutting anything. What I stated is that it is formed in such a way that it precludes productive discussion about the content. I requested that you form it more clearly so that we could have said discussion. If your argument is valid, you should have no problem doing that. I'd think that you'd want to make it clearer, if it's as damning and clear an argument as you seem to think. An example of the problem with the form of your argument (which is distinct from the argument you are trying to convey) comes in points 5-7. In 5, where did this idea that a second arrangement of matter is necessary come from? Why is it that this second arrangement is able to "evoke an effect", but the first arrangement is not? In 6, what is this distinction between "presence of a representation" and "arrangement"? And you claimed earlier that representations are entirely arbitrary, so why do you specify the "arbitrary component" of a representation? In 7, there is no prior logical support to the statement that "these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their material makeup". And then you introduce the idea of a "representation" and "protocol" as an irreducibly complex system, without any reason that such a system must be irreducibly complex. So, will you present a more clearly-formed argument, a syllogism, so that we can discuss the contents clearly? BioTurboNick

There is a curious implication that it’s only the TSZ regulars who suffer this malaise … yet the wider court of scientific opinion is utterly silent on the matter of ‘semiosis’.

Because they have to be, Allan. It's their jobs on the line. They have to believe that someday someone will figure out how blind and undirected chemical processes produced a living organism using only matter and energy. And that is also the point. If the teachers didn't tell the students that nature didit, they would naturally infer it was designed. IOW you cannot afford to just teach the evidence without also saying "easy stuff for a blind watchmaker with eons of time". Joe

Reciprocating Bill has informed me that he has a question he wishes for me to answer. He wants to know 'what class of thing' I think can establish a semiotic state. My answer to that question doesn't change the argument or evidence for semiosis in the genome (in any way whatsoever). And the only reason the question is being asked is to provide some grist for the mill, i.e. some intellectual balm for the burns he received by having to concede his objections to my argument were invalid. Now, he and his brothers are thirsty. They very obviously feel the need to excercise their personal incredulity in place of empirical observation. And since I have taken so much ("ID has no entailments" was Bill's favorite line against ID), I am only too happy to give a little back. However I don't want my answer to interfere with Onlooker's ability to articulate the advertised flaw within the argument. So as soon as he gets around to it, or expresses his withdrawal, I'll be happy to answer. Upright BiPed

RB:

Upright Biped, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Design, ie agency involvement.

Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Necessity and chance/ blind and undirected processes.

Given your emphasis upon “material observations,” provide empirical justification of those assertions in light of your semiotic theory.

Every observation ever made. Joe

So if there is no known mechanism capable of establishing this semiotic state, where does this leave your theory?

Design, ie agency involvement, is the only known mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state.

How did your designer transfer the original information into the cell?

That is what science is for. However we can say it was via some means that are obviously beyond our current capabilities. But we don't have to know that before coming to design inference. Ya see we already know your position's proposed mechanisms are not up to the task. So we have to move on and go with known mechanisms capable of producing dFSCI. Joe

re: #688 Bill, I am putting no effort into "undecidable philosophical criticisms of molecular genetics and neo-Darwinian evolution". What I am discussing are the observed material conditions required for the transfer of recorded information. The conclusion is that the genome demonstrates a semiotic state during protein synthesis, and the origin of that system will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state. End. What is peculiar however, is that you and your ideological brothers adamantly deny what is 1) plainly discernable to anyone who can read technical data, 2) is a logical necessity which is easily accessible to any educated person, and 3) has appeared over and over again in peer-reviewed journals. The question why are you putting so much effort into denying material evidence? Upright BiPed

RB quoting Pattee:

I also believe it is counterproductive when structuralists and bio semioticians put so much of their efforts into undecidable philosophical criticisms of molecular genetics and neo-Darwinian evolution theory. In spite of unsolved problems, some overstated claims, and some errors, one should not disregard the enormous volume of empirical results, the explanatory power, and practical applications of these disciplines.

What empirical results, what explanatory power and what prctical applications are there are darwinism/ neo-darwinism? How does saying "it evolved" explain anything? How does starting with the conclusion = an empirical result? And just what practical applications can it have when all the details are missing? Strange what these guys will just believe when it appears to support their position. Joe

Onlooker? Are you able to articulate what you do not understand about the text you bolded? Upright BiPed

D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations.

What a moron.

...could you please give an example of a context specific connection?

If your computer keyboard is like mine, most of the keys are the same size and are connected to a post perhaps, call it a connector. If you were of a mind to you could pull off the various keys for each letter and re-arrange them on your keyboard (connect them to a different connector). In fact, QWERTY keyboards are just one kind of keyboard. Why are the keys arranged the way they are on a QWERTY keyboard? What determines the location on a keyboard of the 'Q' key? What determines which key must be connected to which connector? Mung

onlooker, Your attempts to redefine arbitrary don't even come close. Please consult a dictionary. Then consult a thesaurus. Possibly look at some synonyms and antonyms. Mung

Diogenes@ [525]: Meyer’s habit of firing off moronic falsehoods about it like he’s an expert, is taken down by an actual professor of information theory, Jeff Shallit, here. This requires rebuttal. Let me quote Shallit from his putative "take down" of Meyer:

I have a simple counterexample to all these claims: weather prediction. Meteorologists collect huge amounts of data from the natural world: temperature, pressure, wind speed, wind direction, etc., and process this data to produce accurate weather forecasts. So the information they collect is "specified" (in that it tells us whether to bring an umbrella in the morning), and clearly hundreds, if not thousands, of these bits of information are needed to make an accurate prediction. But these bits of information do not come from a mind - unless Meyer wants to claim that some intelligent being (let's say Zeus) is controlling the weather. Perhaps intelligent design creationism is just Greek polytheism in disguise!

This statement is sadly just filled with foolishness. Shallit wants to dispute Meyer's contention that information is produced by intelligent agents. And this is his counterexample?!? As a thought experiment, let's go to Denver, CO 2 million years ago. And let's say we're aliens from another planet. We want to know what the weather has been like over the last five years. How do we get this information? Are there any humans that exist? No. Are there any instruments for recording this information? No. Is there anything that can be used to store the information if it could be recorded in the first place? No. Etc, etc. IOW, if humans didn't exist in the first place, then this 'information' wouldn't exist either. This 'information' that Shallit seems to think exists outside of humans is no where to be found unless, and only, if humans are there to (1) build thermometers, (2) measure the temperature, and (3) record it. No humans, then no information; and we aliens would be completely out of luck. Now, with this clarity added, let's just take a look at the very language Shallit uses as he "takes down" Meyer: ". . . meteorologists collect . . . process this data . . . produce accurate forecasts. . . " The logical conclusion drawn from Shallit's example is that "meteorologists" produce "accurate weather forecasts." No humans, then no information. What has he proven here? It's just all gibberish. So, please, Diogenes, let's not for a moment think that Shallit has even laid a glove on Meyer. PaV

Your vaunted “Semiotic Argument for ID” ends not with a bang, but a whimper.

As do most arguments by ID critics here at UD. With the critics running off whimpering with their tails between their legs. Mung

BTW Alan, just the fact that you require clarification says you are too stupid or peverse to follow along. Deal with it... Joe

Alan Fox:

I think you have to question your apparent presumption that we are all too stupid or perverse to follow your logic.

Nope, that much is very obvious, ie there is no question about it. Joe

Onlooker, feel free to use one or more of these phrases to describe what you do not understand: I do not understand how... I do not understand why... etc Upright BiPed

In your 658 you thanked me for a further definition of arbitrary, then turned right around and asked me about arbitrary. Tell me exactly, in specific language, what you do not understand about the bolded text. If you can articulate your problem, then I can answer you. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

I see you running for the door.

That would be your wishful thinking misleading you.

I am not going anywhere. I’m simply giving you an opportunity to come up with something after "arbitrary".

Here is my comment 658 again, for your convenience:

Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are "materially arbitrary".

Thank you for putting forward your own definition. This is the first I remember you using the idea of "context specific within a system". It sounds like my other proposed definition might be closer to what you are trying to express: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Is that what you mean by context specific connections? If not, could you please give an example of a context specific connection?

Please restate your premise “If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers.” to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate.

Those aren’t my words, they are yours.

They come from your paragraph 3:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

(Bolding mine.) I modified your phrasing based on your agreed definitions for "representation" and "information", but explained each step in the first comment in which I did so. If you don't like my rephrasing, please provide your own for the bolded portion of your paragraph 3. I do not understand the point you are trying to make. onlooker

Onlooker, I see you running for the door. I am not going anywhere. I'm simply giving you an opportunity to come up with something after "arbitrary". Take all the time you need. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Have I not mentioned? You may opine whatever you wish in building your very own shallow rhetotical victory. I hope for you a warm time together. But you haven’t even scratched the argument in the OP.

Wow, this is an even more pathetic ending to the discussion than I expected. Your vaunted "Semiotic Argument for ID" ends not with a bang, but a whimper. If you ever decide to demonstrate some intellectual integrity and actually answer the numerous questions posed to you, do let me know. Until you do answer those questions, though, any claim that you've provided support for ID, or even stated anything coherently, is dishonest. onlooker

Nick, I had not seen your comment at 610. I will answer it now: - - - - - - - - Nick,

This argument is amateurishly formed.

This argument was clipped from a simple blog comment written in conversational English, then numbered and presented here. It is the content of the argument that is at issue. You are not capable of refuting the content of the argument (or you would have done so) and your opinion of it formation will not help you in that regard.

It is hard to follow the logic from one point to the next, and new terms are introduced and leaps are taken half-way through without obvious logical support.

If you have the ability to actually articulate with specifics (instead of assertions) as to why you cannot follow the logic (and where leaps are taken), then I will be happy to address your concerns. Until then, may I say that your attempted rebuttal is amateurishly formed. It specifically addresses not a single word, phrase, or concept in the argument, and therefore provides absolutely nothing of value. Upright BiPed

BioTurboNick:

And further, it is not clear why this particular conclusion that you reach even matters. Why are you trying to prove that genome is like other information?

How many 'types' of information are there?

You haven’t stated a clear, formal, logical argument that clearly indicates its premises and follows step by step from that to a conclusion.

prescient? Mung

I noticed on the other thread that GPuccio had an encounter with the retired physicist Mike Elzinga, and appropriate decided not to engage him. There’s not much to engage in Elzinga - as I myself came to understand when I encountered him with the argument in the OP regarding biological symbol systems. It got me thinking though, what a wonderful debate that would be. I’d love to see the eternally condescending Elzinga in a debate with someone like (retired physicist and ardent materialist) Howard Pattee, Professor Emeritus from SUNY. One guy spends his career asking difficult questions and seeking material answers, and the other represents the fossilized hatred of a ideological bigot, locked in the teeth of a culture war. A debate about the essential symbols systems in biology between Howard Pattee and Mike Elzinga:

Pattee: There are more requirements for a polymer sequence to function as a symbol besides energy degeneracy [representations] , coding rules [protocols], and the ability to fold into a specific catalyst. The entire system must be able to replicate and to persist by heritable variation and natural selection. It was only after studying the nature of hierarchical organization, von Neumann’s logic of self-replication, and the measurement problem that I began to understand the essential semiotic requirement that symbols and codes must be part of a language to allow open-ended evolution. To explain this I need to recount a brief personal history … The symbol–matter problem first arose in my thinking about the origin of life. I have to agree with Laotzu that symbols emerged from the lawful material universe at the origin of life … Before the discoveries of the genetic code and protein synthesis, physicists often viewed life as a basic challenge to natural laws, and many expressed doubt that life is reducible to physical laws. Bohr (1933), Delbrück, and Schrödinger are prominent examples of those whose thoughts on the subject are in the literature (e.g., McKaughan 2005) … In the 1960s there were two schools of thought; one school focused on the molecular structure and biochemistry of life, the other school (that should now be recognized as “biosemiotics”) focused on the informational aspects of genetic control (e.g., Beadle 1963; Kendrew 1968; Stent 1968; Delbrück 1970). I first belonged to the material school because my physics research was on x-ray microscopic and microdiffraction techniques for studying cell structure. Because the origin of life certainly requires understanding the origin of higher levels of organization, I also began to study hierarchical structures, specifically how new levels of organization are distinguished and whether higher levels of structure were objective, a descriptive convenience, or an epistemic necessity … I first publicly discussed these ideas in 1966 at Waddington’s theoretical biology symposia at the Villa Serbelloni. At the first symposium I explained the physical requirements for a symbol code (Pattee 1968). At the final Waddington symposium I emphasized that, “dependence on symbol structures and language constraints is the essence of life.” I also warned that an exclusive reductionist view of molecular biology was obscuring the fundamental symbol–matter problem. “In fact, the acceptance of the structural data of molecular biology as ‘the physical basis of life’ tends to obscure the basic question rather than illuminate it. We are taught more and more to accept the genetic instructions as nothing but ordinary molecules, and to forget the integrated constraints that endow what otherwise would be ordinary molecules with their functional symbolic properties.” … “What I would like to counteract is the oversimplification, or perhaps what is better called the evasion of the genotype–phenotype distinction. In order to have an explanation of life, this distinction cannot be treated as merely a descriptive convenience for what is popularly assumed to be the molecular basis of life. This interpretation is not the property of a single molecule, which is only a symbol vehicle, but a consequence of a coherent set of constraints with which they interact” (Pattee 1972: p. 249) … I define symbol as a material constraint not determined by physical laws that controls specific physical dynamics of a self-replicating system. My usage is consistent with other definitions of a symbol, like Peirce’s triadic symbol– interpreter–referent definition. However, all the detailed refinements of Peirce’s complicated terminologies I find empirically ambiguous and unnecessary at the cellular level. I should add that symbols are arbitrary only to the extent that they are not proximally or structurally determined by laws. However they are non-arbitrary to the extent that they have been naturally or artificially selected to satisfy functional requirements.

Elzinga: What “representations and protocols” do atoms follow when they condense into stars? What “representations and protocols” do stars follow in building up heavier elements from hydrogen and helium? What “representations and protocols” do stars follow when they go supernova and throw those new elements out onto space and generate additional heavier elements in the shock waves of the explosion? What “representations and protocols” do these elements follow when they condense into second and third generation stars and are built up into even heavier elements? What “representations and protocols” do atoms follow when they combine into compounds? What “representations and protocols” do atoms and molecules follow when condensing into solids and liquids? … Where along the chain of complexity that we see in matter in the universe does the notion of “representations and protocols” start replace the laws of physics and chemistry? Why do “representations and protocols” have to replace the laws of physics and chemistry? … Are you suggesting that “representations and protocols” somehow “make use of” the laws of physics and chemistry? How do they do that? What physical mechanism(s) is(are) involved when “representations and protocols” push atoms and molecules around or “make use of” the laws of physics and chemistry? … How does “information” push atoms and molecules around? What does semiotics have to do with any of this?

Upright BiPed

Onlooker, Have I not mentioned? You may opine whatever you wish in building your very own shallow rhetotical victory. I hope for you a warm time together. But you haven't even scratched the argument in the OP. :) Upright BiPed

*closing on 350. Changed my sentence midstream BioTurboNick

30 days and 660 comments later, and all we’ve found is a copy editor. The argument stands. :|

I saw you post this in the comments section of an Huffington Post blog. I came here to look at your argument. If you refer to my comment #610, you can see why your argument appears to stand: It "stands" much in the same way that a complex knot might remain untied. You haven't stated a clear, formal, logical argument that clearly indicates its premises and follows step by step from that to a conclusion. If you are honest in wanting to present a strong argument that would be a challenge to "Darwinists", you should have no problem reformulating it in such a manner. As it stands now, your argument consists of casually unstated premises, loose connections from one point to the next and shifting definitions. This isn't the mathematical proof of connections between prime numbers we're talking about here. When most of the closing on 330 comments (let's just assume half are from you/yours) are just trying to figure out what exactly your argument is, that strongly indicates that the problem is yours. BioTurboNick

onlooker:

30 days and 660 comments later and you still have nothing but incoherent word salad that you refuse to clarify out of fear that your position might be refuted.

That is your opinion. And your opinion means nothing here. Joe

Upright BiPed,

30 days and 660 comments later, and all we’ve found is a copy editor. The argument stands.

30 days and 660 comments later and you still have nothing but incoherent word salad that you refuse to clarify out of fear that your position might be refuted. I do note that you've demonstrated my prognostication skills quite nicely. From my comment 340:

If your previous pattern of behavior is any indication, your next steps will be to continue to avoid putting your argument at any risk of being challenged, either by refusing to engage in good faith or by running away, and then to claim victory, collecting kudos from a half-dozen ID proponents, none of whom are able to defend your argument any better than you.

So, how about you stop playing silly buggers, man up, and address my comment 658? onlooker

as to this comment: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-434220 This paper is relevant

Best Constraint On Mass of Photons, Using Observations of Super-Massive Black Holes - Sept. 2015 Excerpt: This paper details how the scientists, who work in Portugal, Italy, Japan and the U.S., found a way to use astrophysical observations to test a fundamental aspect of the Standard Model -- namely, that photons have no mass -- better than anyone before. "The test works like this: if photons had a mass, they would trigger an instability that would spin down all black holes in the universe," Berti said. "But astronomers tell us that the gigantic, super-massive black holes at galactic centers are spinning, so this instability cannot be too strong.,,, With this technique, we have succeeded in constraining the mass of the photon to unprecedented levels: the mass must be one hundred billion of billions times smaller than the present constraint on the neutrino mass, which is about two electron-volts." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120925142605.htm

bornagain77

Could you please turn your argument into a syllogism? Only syllogisms are logical Your argument is not a syllogism Therefore, your argument is not logical And we don't need any stinking observations. They just get in the way of the facts. Mung

30 days and 660 comments later, and all we've found is a copy editor. The argument stands. :| Upright BiPed

D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

This one has me scratching my head. On my desk I have a phone and a book in an arbitrary arrangement. But they are directly connected to each other by the desk, therefore, it's not an arbitrary arrangement. (According to this definition of arbitrary.) Mung

gpuccio:

Excuse me if I am a little bit tired of answering questions that derive solely from misreading what I write.

onlooker, A Case in Point Mung

Mung- Johnson is an IDist, so of course he understands the meaning of words. Notice how he somehow knew the importance of saying what definition he was using wrt "arbitrary"? ;) Joe

In the last 10 years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating according to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). - Donald E. Johnson, Programming of Life

Mung

onlooker:

I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

Perhaps you should take what he has written at face value, rather than trying to re-conceptualize everything. Has it occurred to you that your constant attempts to re-write what he has said are contributing to your confusion? No? Well, think about it. Mung

Mung:

An unbiased rational observer might think that onlooker is attempting to introduce imprecision rather than clarity.

That is the reasoning behind rephrasing... Joe

Upright BiPed,

Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are "materially arbitrary".

Thank you for putting forward your own definition. This is the first I remember you using the idea of "context specific within a system". It sounds like my other proposed definition might be closer to what you are trying to express: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Is that what you mean by context specific connections? If not, could you please give an example of a context specific connection?

Please restate your premise “If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers.” to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate.

Those aren’t my words, they are yours.

They come from your paragraph 3:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

(Bolding mine.) I modified your phrasing based on your agreed definitions for "representation" and "information", but explained each step in the first comment in which I did so. If you don't like my rephrasing, please provide your own for the bolded portion of your paragraph 3. I do not understand the point you are trying to make. onlooker

Mung, I believe onlooker cannot post in any threads started by Kairosfocus because KF has grown very tired of onlookers belligerence and will not tolerate it in his threads. Joe

onlooker, Do you understand the importance of credibility? Mung

At least onlooker has been true to ignoring my posts. I have to grant that! But what use is self-discipline unless it's in service to the truth? Mung

Maybe unable to post there has a different meaning on TSZ than it does here. But wouldn't that only support the argument you're making? Mung

Mung, I don't understand. If Onlooker was banned from posting here on 9/21, then who in the name of Onlooker posted here today? Maybe its actually Onaooker... and we just ain't hip to that program yet. :) Upright BiPed

Hey Upright BiPed, Did you know onlooker has been banned from UD as of September 21? So who are you talking to?

gpuccio addressed a comment to me at Uncommon Descent. Onlooker, a commenter now unable to post there, has expressed an interest in continuing a dialogue with gpuccio and petrushka comments:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1296 Subsequent to that post by Alan Fox, onlooker posted in the same thread and failed to set the record straight. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1296&cpage=1#comment-15880 In the true Elizabeth Liddle tradition! Skeptical Zone my a**. Skeptical of anything but the actual facts, I guess. Mung

haha. i wish i'd thought of it sooner. I should have made my lol an aoa. oh well. some opportunities come only once in a lifetime. :) Mung

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll What the FREAK is wrong with my 'A' key? Mung

lol! Mung

...sorry, couldn't resist. :| Upright BiPed

Mung,

I don't believe you.

That's because you don't recognize that your conceptions of human knowledge are an idea that would be subject to criticism. :) Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed:

They are also imprecise with regard to the thing “to which the information refers.” ... The remainder of your post simply repeats the imprecision in your rewrite.

An unbiased rational observer might think that onlooker is attempting to introduce imprecision rather than clarity.

There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are “materially arbitrary”.

You mean to say if I hit the key marked 'A' on my keyboard there's no inexorable law according to which an 'a' must appear on my computer screen? You're saying that if I take the 'L' thingy on my keyboard and swap it with the 'A' thingy on my keyboard, and then I hit the key marked ‘A’ on my keyboard again, that an 'a' may not appear on my screen? I don't believe you. Mung

Onlooker,

More progress, excellent!

The idea that the arbitrary relationship (between representation and effect) is “context specific, not an inexorable law” was first made six-hundred and twenty-one comments ago at comment #11. It was then repeated several times over the past thirty days, including being re-stated directly to you. So once again, it has been your decision to perpetuate a false narrative (that you can't understand the argument) which has created the ‘lack of progress’, to which you are now hypocritically pleased to be rid of.

I gather from this that you accept my first proposed definition of “arbitrary”:

Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism

No, not at all. Of course the representation and its effect are connected by a physical mechanism, that's what the whole point of the translation process – connecting them by a physical mechanism. The translation process allows the arbitrary component of a representation to constrain the output of a physically determined system. The point is that the connection between them requires the protocol in that system, and without it, there is no relationship between them. Since your rewrite fails to be clear on this issue, there is no justification to use it. For the sake of clarity, you should accept the fuller, more accurate definitions already given (the one you just applauded): Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are “materially arbitrary”. . . .

Please restate your premise “If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers.” to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate.

Those aren't my words, they are yours. They are also imprecise with regard to the thing “to which the information refers.” This is in contrast to the definitions already on the table, which specify that representations are arbitrary to the effects they evoke. The remainder of your post simply repeats the imprecision in your rewrite. One cannot forget that your rewrite is a tactical maneuver for the purposes of resulting in something you can argue against. As it stands now, you cannot meet the challenge presented in the OP. Upright BiPed

Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator Mung

And that's just the information storage capacity in DNA, the programming in DNA is another matter entirely:

Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors - Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?" http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf

Bill Gates, in recognizing the superiority found in Genetic Coding compared to the best computer coding we now have, has now funded research into this area:

Welcome to CoSBi - (Computational and Systems Biology) Excerpt: Biological systems are the most parallel systems ever studied and we hope to use our better understanding of how living systems handle information to design new computational paradigms, programming languages and software development environments. The net result would be the design and implementation of better applications firmly grounded on new computational, massively parallel paradigms in many different areas. (of note: this header has now gone missing from the site) http://www.cosbi.eu/index.php/component/content/article/171 Biochemical Turing Machines “Reboot” the Watchmaker Argument - Fazale Rana - July 2012 Excerpt: Researchers recognize several advantages to DNA computers.(7) One is the ability to perform a massive number of operations at the same time (in parallel) as opposed to one at a time (serially) as demanded by silicon-based computers. Secondly, DNA has the capacity to store an enormous quantity of information. One gram of DNA can house as much information as nearly 1 trillion CDs. And a third benefit is that DNA computing operates near the theoretical capacity with regard to energy efficiency. http://stevebrownetc.com/2012/07/02/biochemical-turing-machines-%E2%80%9Creboot%E2%80%9D-the-watchmaker-argument/ Scientists' 3-D View of Genes-at-Work Is Paradigm Shift in Genetics - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Highly coordinated chromosomal choreography leads genes and the sequences controlling them, which are often positioned huge distances apart on chromosomes, to these 'hot spots'. Once close together within the same transcription factory, genes get switched on (a process called transcription) at an appropriate level at the right time in a specific cell type. This is the first demonstration that genes encoding proteins with related physiological role visit the same factory. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215160649.htm

Besides parallel computer programming, man will also learn how to program "quantumly"!

Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - Elisabeth Rieper - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement between the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA - Elisabeth Rieper, Janet Anders and Vlatko Vedral - February 2011 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.4053v2.pdf

In the following article, Dr. Hameroff expands on the quantum computation aspect of Rieper, Anders and Vedral paper:

Is DNA a quantum computer? Stuart Hameroff Excerpt: DNA could function as a quantum computers with superpositions of base pair dipoles acting as qubits. Entanglement among the qubits, necessary in quantum computation is accounted for through quantum coherence in the pi stack where the quantum information is shared,,, http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/dnaquantumcomputer1.htm Quantum Computing in DNA – Stuart Hameroff Excerpt of Hypothesis: DNA utilizes quantum information and quantum computation for various functions. Superpositions of dipole states of base pairs consisting of purine (A,G) and pyrimidine (C,T) ring structures play the role of qubits, and quantum communication (coherence, entanglement, non-locality) occur in the “pi stack” region of the DNA molecule.,,, We can then consider DNA as a chain of qubits (with helical twist). Output of quantum computation would be manifest as the net electron interference pattern in the quantum state of the pi stack, regulating gene expression and other functions locally and nonlocally by radiation or entanglement. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/QuantumComputingInDNA.html

bornagain77

well let's see how their doing trying to create life in the lab:

Scientists Say Intelligent Designer Needed for Origin of Life Chemistry Excerpt: Organic chemist Dr. Charles Garner recently noted in private correspondence that "while this work helps one imagine how RNA might form, it does nothing to address the information content of RNA. So, yes, there was a lot of guidance by an intelligent chemist." Sutherland's research produced only 2 of the 4 RNA nucleobases, and Dr. Garner also explained why, as is often the case, "the basic chemistry itself also required the hand of an intelligent chemist." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/scientists_say_intelligent_des.html

Well that's not to encouraging for the atheists. Here are a few more notes for the atheists to consider in their foolish bravado to prove you don't need God for life:

Do you believe Richard Dawkins exists? Excerpt: DNA is the best information storage mechanism known to man. A single pinhead of DNA contains as much information as could be stored on 2 million two-terabyte hard drives. http://creation.com/does-dawkins-exist Information Storage in DNA by Wyss Institute - video https://vimeo.com/47615970 Quote from preceding video: "The theoretical (information) density of DNA is you could store the total world information, which is 1.8 zetabytes, at least in 2011, in about 4 grams of DNA." Sriram Kosuri PhD. - Wyss Institute Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram - Sebastian Anthony - August 17, 2012 Excerpt: A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.,,, Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri’s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA — Church’s latest book, in fact — and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram DNA Stores Data More Efficiently than Anything We've Created - Casey Luskin - August 29, 2012 Excerpt: Nothing made by humans can approach these kind of specs. Who would have thought that DNA can store data more efficiently than anything we've created. But DNA wasn't designed -- right? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/who_would_have_063701.html Harvard Scientists Write the Book on Intelligent Design—in DNA - Dr. Fazale Rana - September 10, 2012 Excerpt: One gram of DNA can hold up to 455 exabytes (one exabyte equals 10^18 bytes). In comparison, a CD-ROM holds about 700 million (7 x 10^8) bytes of data. (One gram of DNA holds the equivalent amount of data as 600 billion CD-ROMs. Assuming a typical book requires 1 megabyte of data-storage capacity, then one gram of DNA could harbor 455 trillion books.) http://www.reasons.org/articles/harvard-scientists-write-the-book-on-intelligent-design-in-dna

bornagain77

I don't understand why anyone thinks that's such a troubling question for ID. If we create life in the lab, what are they going to argue next? Mung

Do you have a “designer” capable of creating life, Joe?

Yes, the "designer" who did. Joe

What if there was no “Creator/Intelligent Designer”?

Then we wouldn't exist. Joe

Are you implying that onlooker is straining out a golfball just to swallow the earth? Mung

"What if the golf ball had no mass though?" Or perhaps, as long as we are playing 'what ifs', what if the earth were the size of a golfball?

Louie Giglio - How Great Is Our God - Part 2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfNiZrt5FjU Quote from preceding video: You could fit 262 trillion earths inside (the star of) Betelgeuse. If the Earth were a golfball that would be enough to fill up the Superdome (football stadium) with golfballs,,, 3000 times!!! When I heard that as a teenager that stumped me right there because most of my praying had been advising God, correcting God, suggesting things to God, drawing diagrams for God, reviewing things with God, counseling God. - Louie Giglio

bornagain77

Mung, In case you didn't know, this rhetorical game of semantics is a known tactic of losers. That is because all they have is to try to trip you up and confuse you as to what you are trying to convey. If they had any actual evidence, as keiths sez, they would just present it and be done with it. That is why UB said the heck with the TSZ- rhetorical games get old fast and they are intent on playing them until the cows come home. At least Alan Miller anted up his imagination. However- They can't get the required simple replicators. When they start with replicators they can't get them to evolve a new function- they just get better at the one they were designed with. So it all hinges on the rhetorical game. Joe

Toronto asks:

What if the golf ball had no mass though?

Then it wouldn't be a golf ball. Joe

onlooker:

I gather from this that you accept my first proposed definition of “arbitrary”

The word delusional comes to mind. Mung

Upright BiPed,

there is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; that such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are "materially arbitrary".

More progress, excellent! I gather from this that you accept my first proposed definition of "arbitrary": D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. That gets us to three definitions and a premise: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences D2. Information: The form of a thing. D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. P1. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Again leaving aside for now the vagueness of D2, there is at least one remaining open issue before we can progress to a full understanding of your paragraph 3: - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. Assuming your agreement with D3 as stated, I'll take a stab at formulating P2. P2. An arrangement of matter that constitutes information, as the word is used in this argument, is not connected by any direct physical mechanism to the thing to which it refers. This actually looks more like a definition than a premise. In fact, it looks like a further clarification of D2. I propose D2' for your consideration: D2'. Infomation: An arrangement of matter representing the form of a thing, unconnected by any direct physical mechanism to that thing. This allows us to eliminate P2, but it does require another definition: D4. Direct Physical Mechanism: ? Does this rule out things like the connection in the children's game Mousetrap (a Rube Goldberg instantiation) between a marble at one end and a basket dropping at the other? Every link is directly connected to the one before and after it, but the marble isn't proximate to the basket. Being an optimistic sort, I'm going to revisit your paragraph 3 before getting a response from you on this potential progress.

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

I think that all of this is covered by D2'. It simply says that your definition of information means that a representation of matter can only constitute information if it is not directly phyiscally connected to what it is information about. If this is what you mean and if you can clarify what you mean by "direct physical mechanism" then we can move on to paragraph 4! onlooker

to your first question about radio waves. I have always understood radio waves to be energy that traveled at the speed of light,,, as to another comment of yours, I have always understood light to be bent around stars solely because of the warping of space-time as the light travels past the star, i.e. it is not bent because of any considerations of mass that may be imparted to the light bornagain77

Joe you ask:

The other is what if the equation only applies in specific circumstances or even better is the same as the wall we thought we would hit by traveling the speed of sound?

Well, as was amply demonstrated by the recent neutrino finding, that didn't pan out:

Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit – June 2012 Excerpt: Scientists on Friday said that an experiment which challenged Einstein’s theory on the speed of light had been flawed and that sub-atomic particles (neutrinos) — like everything else — are indeed bound by the universe’s speed limit. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.html

i.e. Any atomic particle with 'weight', which includes neutrinos and which excludes photons, cannot go the speed of light, they (particles with 'weight') can only approach the speed of light ever so closely no matter how much energy you pour into the particle trying to accelerate it to the speed of light. Just look at CERN - The Large Hadron Collider !!!

The Large Hadron Collider Excerpt: Inside the accelerator, two beams of particles travel at close to the speed of light with very high energies before colliding with one another. The beams travel in opposite directions in separate beam pipes – two tubes kept at ultrahigh vacuum. They are guided around the accelerator ring by a strong magnetic field, achieved using superconducting electromagnets. These are built from coils of special electric cable that operates in a superconducting state, efficiently conducting electricity without resistance or loss of energy. This requires chilling the magnets to about ?271°C – a temperature colder than outer space. For this reason, much of the accelerator is connected to a distribution system of liquid helium, which cools the magnets, as well as to other supply services. Thousands of magnets of different varieties and sizes are used to direct the beams around the accelerator. These include 1232 dipole magnets of 15m length which are used to bend the beams, and 392 quadrupole magnets, each 5–7m long, to focus the beams. Just prior to collision, another type of magnet is used to "squeeze" the particles closer together to increase the chances of collisions. The particles are so tiny that the task of making them collide is akin to firing needles from two positions 10km apart with such precision that they meet halfway! http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/HowLHC-en.html

Thus Joe, for all intents and purposes, regardless of whatever impenetrable barrier may have been imagined for the the speed of sound, the speed of light is, despite all attempts to scale the wall, a impenetrable wall for any particle with 'weight' (including the nearly weightless neutrinos) bornagain77

Photons reaching us from stars will have their trajectories altered by large masses like galaxies. This observation is consistent with photons having mass.

Gravity also affects time. Does that mean time also has mass? :roll:

To get back to your “non-material” designer, just what is he made of?

I don't have one and the design inference cannot tell us if the designer(s) is (are) material or non-material. That said I say that energy is non-material. Ya see Einstein said that matter and energy are DIFFERENT manifestations of the same thing. I will stick with him. Joe

Mung, No haven't read it. I will check the local libraries. Joe

bornagain- Thanks again two things, one for clarification- radio waves- not of infinite mass even though they travel the speed of light- energy yes, mass no-> yes or no The other is what if the equation only applies in specific circumstances or even better is the same as the wall we thought we would hit by traveling the speed of sound? The specific circumstance would be accelerating an object at rest, of X mass, to the speed of light and not to objects already in motion. Joe

correction:

,,,Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we now have (many of which I have NOT listed here),,,

bornagain77

As well, as with the scientifically verified tunnel for special relativity, we also have scientific confirmation of extreme ‘tunnel curvature’, within space-time, to a eternal ‘event horizon’ at black holes. Here is a visual representation of that curvature:

Space-Time of a Black hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8

But to continue on with the main topic,,, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time (as quantum teleportation is), i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of quantum information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ (in quantum teleportaion experiments) is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we now have (many of which I have listed here); transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).

"An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane Kramarik - Child Prodigy -

Logic also dictates 'a decision' must have been made, by the 'transcendent, eternal, infinite information' from the primary timeless (eternal) reality 'It' inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information is the primary reality of our reality and is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse. verse and music:

Psalm 115:2-3 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. Evanescence - The Other Side (Lyric Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiIvtRg7-Lc

bornagain77

Thus Joe, if you will allow me to use 'weight of mass' in a fairly generic sense to reflect the infinity present in the equation that I showed earlier, this is what I have pieced together thus far, in my very limited ability, for the structure of reality:, ,,,Save for 'quantum information', they are correct in their 'like everything else' statement they make in this following article.

Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit - June 2012 Excerpt: Scientists on Friday said that an experiment which challenged Einstein's theory on the speed of light had been flawed and that sub-atomic particles (neutrinos) -- like everything else -- are indeed bound by the universe's speed limit. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.html

The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight.

Special Relativity - Time Dilation and Length Contraction - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY

Of note; the following recent study, with a fairly ingenious thought experiment, cleared up some loose ends in relativity concerning time's relation to space. Loose ends that have been ample fodder for much of the science fiction of time travel:

Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space - April 2012 Excerpt: “Time dilatation simply means that, in a faster inertial system, the velocity of change slows down and this is valid for all observers.,, Our research confirms Gödel's vision: time is not a physical dimension of space through which one could travel into the past or future.” http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

Moreover time, as least as far as we think we understand time, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole 'time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light' concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same 'thought experiment' that gave Einstein his breakthrough insights into e=mc2.

Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/

,,,Yet, even though light has this 'eternal' attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, is concerned.

Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182

That is to say, traveling at the speed of light will only get us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, 'past and future folding into now', framework of time. This higher dimension, 'eternal', inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not 'frozen within time' yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light.

"I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12

Though there are many confirmations of time dilation,,,

Experimental confirmation of Time Dilation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation

,,, this following confirmation of time dilation is my favorite since they have actually caught time dilation on film (of note light travels approx. 1 foot in a nanosecond (billionth of a second) whilst the camera takes a trillion pictures a second)

Amazing --- light filmed at 1,000,000,000,000 Frames/Second! - video (so fast that at 9:00 Minute mark of video the time dilation effect of relativity is caught on film) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoHeWgLvlXI

It is also very interesting to note that we have two very different ‘eternities of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments. One 'eternity' for being deeper in a gravitation well and another 'eternity' for accelerating towards the speed of light:

Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein's theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. --In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.--In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

As well, it is interesting to note the optical effect, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light (of note: the following video was made by two Physics Professors from the University of Australia using a supercomputer):

Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

bornagain77

Hey Joe, have you read: The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality Mung

OK radio waves travel at the speed of light but because they have 0 resting mass they do not grow to infinite mass- radio waves are not objects. But they do contain energy. bornagain- yes I am remembering about relativistic mass Thanks again- much appreciated. Joe

well Joe the issues surrounding this question of 'mass' become quite complicated when discussing relativity as this following site illustrates:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1686/why-does-the-mass-of-an-object-increase-when-its-speed-approaches-that-of-light

none-the-less, If you look on the site I listed, There you will see a equation that has the ubiquitous constant of the speed of light (c) in the denominator, thus when velocity of a object reaches c the entire denominator of the equation goes to zero and thus dividing by zero gives us infinity for a answer, In which the implications are not easy to fish out with the terms rest mass, relativistic mass, inertial mass all being bandied about by the geeks on the site.. bornagain77

So a car going over a bridge at 20 mph weighs less than if it went over the bridge at 55 mph? Do bridge engineers take this into account? (end sarcasm) bornagain- I thought that it was the energy required that makes the difference. IOW to get a particle with mass to accelerate to the speed of light, the energy required by the particle would make that particle infinitely massive. But perhaps they require more and more energy because they get bigger. But again this appears to be relevant only wrt the speed of light. Joe

sigh. lol.

In everyday usage the term "weight" is commonly used to mean mass, which scientifically is an entirely different concept.

In science and engineering, the weight of an object is the force on the object due to gravity....The unit of measurement for weight is that of force, which in the International System of Units (SI) is the newton.... In the 20th century, the Newtonian concepts of gravitation were challenged by relativity. Einstein's principle of equivalence put all observers, accelerating in space far from gravitating bodies, or held in place against gravitation near such a body, on the same footing. This led to an ambiguity as to what exactly is meant by the "force of gravity" and (in consequence) by weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight Mung

Objects get heavier as they accelerate.- Allan Miller They do?

Yes they do, that is why they have had to build bigger and bigger particle accelerators/colliders so as to get ever closer to the speed of light. In fact particles can never be accelerated exactly to the speed of light, but can only approach it ever so closely (99.999...%) because the weight of a particle will become infinite at the speed of light. bornagain77

Objects get heavier as they accelerate.- Allan Miller

They do? Have you actually weighed something that was moving and compared it to the weight when it is at rest? Just because you add force does not mean you add weight. F=MA Yes a moving baseball will hurt more than a stationary baseball but not because it weighs more. And yes a car with a full tank of gas will weigh more than the same car with an empty tank. That is because the fuel has mass. Joe

Onlooker,

Excellent, we’re making a little progress finally

There are forty-two instances of "form of a thing" on this page. Not only does it appear in the OP, but several of those subsequent instances were in comments specifically directed to you. That being the case, the only real impediment to "progress" has been your transparent need to promote the contrived narrative that the argument is beyond your ability to understand it, and that I am unwilling to clarify. Both of those positions are demonstrably false, as is your continued narrative that Reciprocating Bill was not forced to concede that his objections at TSZ were invalid. Post hoc rationalization not withstanding. As for the your remaining issue with the phrase "materially arbitrary" regarding the relationship between a representation and its effect within the system, thus far on this thread I have said:

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing). ...and The first object is a representation; an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent). … and [regarding the word "arbitrary"] It’s not really the word I rely upon; it the material observation which has been made. Proteins aren’t constructed from nucleotides. There is no inherent physical property in the pattern of cytosine-thymine-adenine which maps to leucine. That mapping is context specific, not an inexorable law. This has been shown in the lab.

Now perhaps for an average reader, they could pick up from those comments that there is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; that such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are “materially arbitrary”. However, you do not seem able to grasp this distinction, so I asked you to consider an example where I would separate the representation and its effect in time, space, and their material make-up:

Let’s say you take the genetic symbol C-T-A and put it in your pocket for safe keeping. And tomorrow, you will take it out and run it through a ribosome where it will evoke its specified effect. You can now ask yourself a simple question of logic … can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing?

Yet you have steadfastly refused to enage this example, or the one given previous to it. Can a thing, separated by space, time, and material content, also be the effect it evokes within a system? The answer is “no” it cannot be the same thing. And if it is not the same thing as the effect, yet has a connection to it, then that connection must be materially arbitrary. But reaching this basic understanding is not your goal. Your goal is to keep asking questions and use it as an opportunity to to sling insults and perpetuate a dishonest narrative – which is all you've done. But your failing on this front has already been illuminated here, and nothing has changed. You need to present yourself as an interested opponent who simply cannot get a straight answer, and then to have me fear your ultimate conclusion that I am being evasive in answering you. What you cannot accomplish by evidence and argument, you will attempt to manufacture by rhetoric and deception. But, you assume too much. I am not afraid of anything you say with regard to the argument itself, nor do I fear your foregone conclusion that I am being evasive. - - - - - - - - - - - Now, Dr Liddle stated that she believes it is not even possible to transfer recorded information in a material universe without using “an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information”. Are you able to unass yourself from your rhetoric long enough to agee with her, or not? Upright BiPed

onlooker:

your prose is impenetrable

a lie onlooker:

your refusal to answer simple, direct questions speaks volumes.

another lie and the height of hypocrisy to boot. onlooker:

I am simply trying to understand your argument.

There is a substantial body of evidence now in this thread that indicates otherwise. Mung

onlooker:

You have yet to reply to my two proposed definitions of “arbitrary”:

liar He rejected them both, on numerous occasions. And he offered to help you understand why he rejected them, repeatedly. And you failed to respond, repeatedly. And you accuse him of bad faith. What a crock. Where's your integrity? Mung

to onlooker and all evos- Are you guys really unable to plug in the standard and accepted definitions of the words Upright Biped uses in order to understand what he is saying? If that is true then how do you guys communicate? It should be impossible to communicate given your lack of understanding of the words used to communicate. That said, seeing that you have the ability to communicate that demonstrates the total lack of good faith on your part pertaining UB's semiotic argument. Joe

Upright BiPed,

"information is the form of a thing" is exactly how I’ve used the term throughout the argument

Excellent, we're making a little progress finally. We now have two definitions and a premise agreed upon: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences D2. Information: The form of a thing. P1. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Now, D2 is a bit vague, but we can see if that matters as we work through the rest of your argument. The outstanding issues that remain to get through your paragraph 3 are: - What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? Does it correspond to either of the proposed definitions I offered? - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean in that premise? You have yet to reply to my two proposed definitions of "arbitrary": D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Once we have agreement on this definition, it should be possible to work on "necessarily arbitrary" in the context of your next premise. I look forward to more progress. onlooker

I wonder if toronto ever heard of the conservation laws. Mung

If “e=mc^2?, when m=0, the product “e” becomes 0 also.

OMG! that's a violation of the ^ operator! Mung

I'm obviously not going to be able to read through 609 comments. I will say this, however: This argument is amateurishly formed. It is hard to follow the logic from one point to the next, and new terms are introduced and leaps are taken half-way through without obvious logical support. It would be helpful to all involved if you restated your argument as a list of premises and then follow each step from those premises. And further, it is not clear why this particular conclusion that you reach even matters. Why are you trying to prove that genome is like other information? BioTurboNick

toronto replies:

I’m not sure what you mean here. If “e=mc^2?, when m=0, the product “e” becomes 0 also. Are you saying, that in this material world we occupy, we can have energy without mass?

Go weigh radio waves and tell me how much mass you have. The equation means if you have x amount of energy that = y amount of mass and if you have y amount of mass then x is the amount of energy that mass is equal to. It is an apples (energy) to organges (mass) converter Joe

By the way, Onlooker, The owner of The SkepticalZone, Dr. Elizabeth Liddle was asked by me "if was even possible" to transfer recorded information in a material universe without using "an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information". Her answer was a direct "No" I agree with her. Do you? Upright BiPed

#598 See above Upright BiPed

Now Allan Miller thinks that codons represent amino acids is juts a metaphor. Only a moron would say something like that. The whole biological world uses codons represent amino acids because they do, Allan. It isn't a metaphor, it is reality.

A gene for dark colouration does not represent dark colouration

Nice bait-n-switch, a very cowardly thing to do.

there is a causal relationship between a codon and an acid in a peptide,

What causal relationship is that? Please be specific. I, and the rest of the world, say the causal relationship is a symbolic one. You alone say otherwise. BTW Allan, energy is not material until someone takes it and converts it. Until then energy is non-material. And there aren't any known principles for the emergence of irreducible complexity- that is none beyond design. Joe

#597

You failed to answer the question about why you mentioned measurement at all if it’s not important.

I was responding directly to your original question in #223: “How exactly can information be measured?”

If we can eliminate the concept of measurement, your definition of “information” goes from D2. Information: a) the form of a thing b) a measured aspect c) a measured quality d) a measured preference to D2. Information: The form of a thing.

Three things. Firstly, you now have switched to a different instance of the word “measured” The first was your use in #223, and the second was my use in giving some examples of “the form of a thing”. Secondly, my examples of the “form of a thing” include: 1) a measured aspect. 2) a quality. 3) a preference. Thirdly, “information is the form of a thing” is exactly how I’ve used the term throughout the argument. Information is the form of a thing instantiated in a material medium. I have said that in #122, #134, #223, #223, #241, #243, #252, #259, #271, etc etc. Several of those comments were specifically addressed to you.

You also failed to list all of the open issues: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

I’ve answered this question for the last time, the last time I answered this question.

What is your precise definition of “arbitrary”? Does it correspond to either of the proposed definitions I offered? - Please restate your premise “If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers.” to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does “necessarily arbitrary” mean in that premise?

I’ve given you two examples. The first of these you have yet to address. The second of these you refuse to engage. When you are prepared to engage those examples, I will re-engage this question. Upright BiPed

#596

Onlooker: Fortunately, I was browsing TSZ before I read this and found that Reciprocating Bill has already answered you:

So, you do not intend on pointing out my misuse of the word (quoted directly from the text in full), is that correct? I can imagine not, given that I used the word, then followed it with the Merriam-Webster definition, then coherently re-stated the original sentence with the definition in place of the word. And this silliness was used as a reason to not engage the content of the argument. Regarding Bill, he was saving face (and continues to do so). His contemporaneous complaints mention nothing whatsoever about nouns and verbs (for crying out loud). If you feel otherwise, you may cut and paste them. Bill sought to idiosyncratically confine the word “entailment” to the product of a thing, not allowing that it also applied to the existence of a thing (which to all rationale readers, is exactly the way I used it). This is pedantic nonsense (definition derby) promoted for the purpose of ignoring the content of the argument. Nonetheless, his position on the matter has already been addressed:

What does he say?

RB: UB, your “entailments” cannot both be a “necessary result” of and “the required material conditions” for the transfer of recorded information.

Really? There are “required material conditions” for the transfer of recorded information, which are sufficient to confirm that such a transfer took place. If such a transfer did in fact take place, then these material conditions will be found as a “necessary result” of that transfer.

To continue this line of pedantic justification is an embarrassment. But apparently that embarrassment has not done the work that it would do in most situations involving most people. So allow me again to give you Bill’s concession in its entirety:

UB: Jun 10 Bill, if a specific thing only exist under specific conditions, then does it existence entail the existence of those specific conditions? Reciprocating Bill: Jun 11 Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment.” Not a very useful entailment, however, as you must already know that a phenomenon has both necessary and sufficient conditions, and what they are, before reaching your conclusion that those conditions obtained. But, I take your point.

The first paragraph is a begrudging agreement, and the second paragraph is a positioning statement intended to minimize the effect of that agreement. But please note the third paragraph there: “I take your point”. This is an unambiguous concession by Bill that he agrees with me that the use of the word “entailment” applies equally as well to the existence of a thing, as it does to the product of a thing. He does not mention anything whatsoever about two different uses of a word. He does not mention anything whatsoever about a noun. He does not mention anything whatsoever about a verb. All of that was post hoc rationalization. Please do not ask anyone on the surface of the planet to believe that the man (who tenaciously defended his objection for over two months in front of his colleagues) then wrote a post which included the isolated paragraph “I take your point” but he really meant to say: “While I agree to the above, it has nothing to do with the way you originally mis-used the word”. Give it a rest already. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed:

The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

onlooker:

Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

Nope. Not even close. onlooker:

Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations.

Nope. Not even close. These attempts at re-definition can't even be taken seriously. What a joke. No way are you (onlooker) making an honest attempt at clarity. Mung

1) 2 + 3 = 6. 2) RB: No, that is not a valid use of the “+” operator.

LOL! Maybe it's not a valid use of the assignment operator. Maybe it's one of the values that isn't valid, rather than the operator. What a maroon. Even i know that 2 + 3 = 6 evaluates to 5 = 6. Nothing "invalid" about the use of the + operator. Upright BiPed, this is what you were dealing with at TSZ? I fee for you. Well, what can I say, I guess that's in the true Elizabeth Liddle tradition. And then onlooker comes over here and repeats it. Sheesh. Mung

No one has come close to refuting UB’s thesis after 600 comments. Mung

onlooker:

Here are the two potential definitions of “arbitrary” that I’ve extracted from what you’ve written in this thread

Does either of them include what Upright BiPed actually wrote? Mung

What was that definition of insanity? Copy and pasting the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Mung

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker: What does “necessarily arbitrary” mean in that premise?

The answer first given 454 comments ago:

The word "arbitrary" is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word "apple" written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

You are again repeating without clarifying. In response to that statement I offered two potential definitions of "arbitrary" as used in your argument: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Are either of these what you mean? If not, please provide a clear and precise definition. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker: The outstanding questions and issues are: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

The answer given to you 370 comments ago:

A measured content of information is of no consequence here, only the material conditions of the transfer.

You failed to answer the question about why you mentioned measurement at all if it's not important. If we can eliminate the concept of measurement, your definition of "information" goes from D2. Information: a) the form of a thing b) a measured aspect c) a measured quality d) a measured preference to D2. Information: The form of a thing. Is this how you use the word in your argument? If not, please provide a clear and precise definition. You also failed to list all of the open issues: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? - What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? Does it correspond to either of the proposed definitions I offered? - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean in that premise? I look forward to your direct responses to those. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker:You used the term incorrectly in one case and Bill called you on it. You then managed to use it correctly and he recognized that. There was no “concession” and to suggest so is either delusional or dishonest.

My usage:

So here we have a series of observations regarding the physicality of recorded information which repeat themselves throughout every form – no matter whether that information is bound to humans, or human intelligence, or other living things, or non-living machines. There is a list of physical entailments of recorded information that can therefore be generalized and compiled without regard to the source of the information. In other words, the list is only about the physical entailments of the information, not its source. I am using the word “entailment” in the standard sense – to impose as a necessary result (Merriam-Webster). These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer. Point out my misuse of the word “entailment”.

Fortunately, I was browsing TSZ before I read this and found that Reciprocating Bill has already answered you:

OK. First, you claim to have presented a definition of the noun "entailment," but instead reproduce a definition of the verb “to entail.” Statements imply or entail. That which is entailed is an "entailment." So much for philosophy by dictionary. Second, you once again conflate cause and result. You state, "These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer" (my emphasis). But you elsewhere (at the moment of your great victory) also claim that "the physical entailments" are necessary and sufficient material conditions for the existence of recorded information.* But your entailments cannot arise both as a result of of the existence of recorded information and be the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of recorded information. So the above again exemplifies your muddled understanding of entailment, which I identified in my first post. *As an additional loop in the confusion you claim that to be "a necessary and sufficient material condition" of a phenomenon is not to be a necessary and sufficient cause of that phenomenon. The muddle deepens. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-433991

I don't intend to keep copying and pasting from TSZ when you're quite able to post over there yourself, but I'm a giving kind of person and thought I'd save you the trouble this time. onlooker

Onlooker: What does “necessarily arbitrary” mean in that premise?

The answer first given 454 comments ago:

The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

And the first attempt 252 comments ago to engage you in an addiotnal example:

Let’s say you take the genetic symbol C-T-A and put it in your pocket for safe keeping. And tomorrow, you will take it out and run it through a ribosome where it will evoke its specified effect. You can now ask yourself a simple question of logic … can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing?

You have yet to answer. Upright BiPed

Onlooker: The outstanding questions and issues are: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

The answer given to you 370 comments ago:

A measured content of information is of no consequence here, only the material conditions of the transfer.

Upright BiPed

Onlooker:You used the term incorrectly in one case and Bill called you on it. You then managed to use it correctly and he recognized that. There was no “concession” and to suggest so is either delusional or dishonest.

My usage:

So here we have a series of observations regarding the physicality of recorded information which repeat themselves throughout every form – no matter whether that information is bound to humans, or human intelligence, or other living things, or non-living machines. There is a list of physical entailments of recorded information that can therefore be generalized and compiled without regard to the source of the information. In other words, the list is only about the physical entailments of the information, not its source. I am using the word “entailment” in the standard sense – to impose as a necessary result (Merriam-Webster). These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer.

Point out my misuse of the word "entailment". Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Given the fact that you have repeatedly failed to answer direct questions about your argument here at UD and that you have a proven history of running away in another forum when confronted with such questions,

Do you mean your question about what I meant in my use of the term “arbitrary”? Does this qualify as an answer:

UB: The first object is a representation; an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

Repeating the words that I've already asked you to clarify does not count as an answer, no. Here are the two potential definitions of "arbitrary" that I've extracted from what you've written in this thread: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Are either of these accurate? If not, please provide a clear and precise definition.

As far as leaving TSZ, I spent two months there in open debate with Reciprocating Bill, who lodged two very specific objections. In one instance he objected to my use of the term "entailment". He eventually conceded that if a thing existed (which has unique material conditions), then its very existence would ‘entail’ that those conditions existed as well.

That is not an accurate statement of what happened. You used the term incorrectly in one case and Bill called you on it. You then managed to use it correctly and he recognized that. There was no "concession" and to suggest so is either delusional or dishonest. Toronto has provided an excellent analogy for what happened:

Upright BiPed: "RB took the intellectual lead at TSZ and denied any need to engage the evidence because there was a supposed logical flaw in the argument. It took two months for him to concede otherwise."

It is incredible to me that UB still thinks onlookers believe this! Let me demonstrate. 1) UB: 2 + 3 = 6. 2) RB: No, that is not a valid use of the “+” operator. 3) UB: Does 5 + 5 = 10? 4) RB: Yes, that is a valid use of the “+” operator. 5) UB: AHAAA! You concede that 1) is valid! Do you see where you went wrong UB?

As far as your interaction with keiths goes, you've got that wrong as well.

Keith: Answer me! UB: You added extraneous items to your reformulation. Keith: Answer me! UB: You added extraneous items to your reformulation. (repeat ad nauseum)

No thanks.

What keiths asked of you was:

If you think this is an accurate summary, then tell us. If you don’t, then please make corrections while maintaining the explicit and concise format of the summary.

You refused to do that, leading to the inescapable conclusion that you are not really interested in making your argument understandable. So, given that you have a history that includes squirming in response to Lizzie's questions here until it became apparent that you would not operationalize your definitions, running away from the discussion at The Skeptical Zone when the participants there were finally able to understand enough of your nearly impenetrable prose to ask direct questions highlighting the flaws in your argument, and using evasive rhetorical tactics to avoid answering my questions here, any objective observer would understand that I'd like a firm commitment from you to engage in good faith before asking anyone else to go to the effort of attempting to decipher your points.

That’s why I ask “On what grounds do you refuse to answer”. So… Let us try one more time:

…can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing?

Why do you continue to refuse to answer a question so obvious that even a small child could answer it with ease?

Here again you demonstrate your evasiveness and refusal to engage in good faith. The actual current status of this discussion is that we have three less than precise definitions and two premises, one of which is nearly incoherent, and we haven't progressed past your third paragraph. D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences D2. Information: a) the form of a thing b) a measured aspect c) a measured quality d) a measured preference D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. P1'''. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. P2. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. The outstanding questions and issues are: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? - What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? Does it correspond to either of the proposed definitions I offered? - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean in that premise? If you are genuinely interested in making your argument understandable, you will directly answer these questions. If you are still more afraid of having your position challenged than you are interested in the truth, you will continue to attempt to evade answering directly. onlooker

Ever hear of telekinesis, ie thought energy?

Joe, And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Mung

And BTW information is STILL neither matter nor energy- ie non-material. Yet we seem to be able to do quite a bit with it. Joe

Toronto- your strawman arguments prove that you are clueless:

If your designer was “immaterial”, he had no “mass” and therefore, no “energy”.

NON_material, and energy is non-material. But that is moot as the designer would use the matter and energy in this material universe. Ever hear of telekinesis, ie thought energy? Joe

And more desperation: “A non-material designer can manipulate matter using energy- just as I said. “ toronto:

Onlookers would like to know why you don’t have an answer to *how*?

Onlookers would need to tell me how that is even relevant- we don't have to know how designers did it BEFORE we can determine they did. Obvioulsy evos have no clue how science operates. We don't know how the Coarl castle was built, does that mean naturedidit- heck it is all coral and nature makes coral. Joe

#305

The truth of the matter is rather obvious. You won’t answer this simple question because for you to openly admit that nothing exist between these two items except for a relationship, is to give away your ideological farm. The entire remainder of my argument necessarily follows from this simple observation, so consequently, you must not allow it.

Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed;

Do you mean your question about what I meant in my use of the term “arbitrary”?

Obviously not. Because that would mean onlooker is leveling false accusations. onlooker:

I’ve provided two possible definitions of “arbitrary” as used in your argument above. Do either of these correspond to your intended meaning? If not, please provide a clear and precise definition.

oops. And then you (UBP) even went further and tried to clarify using an example. Yet anther accepted practice. Which onlooker then proceeded to ignore while loudly complaining that you are avoiding the question. Mung

onlooker, Asking question in order to encourage understanding is an accepted practice. Why do you think you're the only one who is permitted to engage in the practice and that anyone else who does so is being evasive? Mung

The DNA codons representing each amino acid are also listed.

haha, good one joe. Now expect them all to send an email asking the course developer to define 'representation' and accusing him/her of bad faith.

In this table, the twenty amino acids found in proteins are listed, along with the single-letter code used to represent these amino acids in protein data bases.

Then I expect them to quibble over whether the SLC is a representation.

The DNA codons representing each amino acid are also listed.

But that's obviously a different sort of representation than the SLC. But what amino acid TAA represent? Mung

Onlooker,

Given the fact that you have repeatedly failed to answer direct questions about your argument here at UD and that you have a proven history of running away in another forum when confronted with such questions,

Do you mean your question about what I meant in my use of the term “arbitrary”? Does this qualify as an answer:

UB: The first object is a representation; an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

As far as leaving TSZ, I spent two months there in open debate with Reciprocating Bill, who lodged two very specific objections. In one instance he objected to my use of the term “entailment”. He eventually conceded that if a thing existed (which has unique material conditions), then its very existence would ‘entail’ that those conditions existed as well.

BIPED on June 10: Bill, if a specific thing only exist under specific conditions, then does its existence entail the existence of those specific conditions? Reciprocating Bill on June 11: Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment” … I take your point.

And in the second instance, he objected to the logic of the argument. He accomplished this by placing inappropriate logical operators in his own re-formulation of the argument, then objecting to his reformulation. He presented this as a "fatal flaw", where he immediately absolved himself from any responsibility to address the actual content of the argument. Eventually he was forced to concede that if the sufficient and necessary conditions of a thing are present, then that thing is present.

Reciprocating Bill: April 18th My remark above underscores a fatal logical non-sequitur in your reasoning and doesn’t turn on “counter examples.” Reciprocating Bill: May 8th I assert (not suggest) that you do not understand entailment, and due to your failure to grasp entailment you have constructed an argument beset with a fatal logical flaw … As for evidence for my position: recall that my position is that your argument is fatally logically flawed. Recoprocating Bill: June 10th Of course if the necessary and sufficient conditions of a phenomenon are present, then phenomenon is present – as I stated above (B is the necessary and sufficient conditions for A. Therefore B -> A.)

After Bill conceded, I left. I suppose I could have stayed and argued with Toronto, who in order to maintain his brilliant line of reasoning, proposed that by simply handing someone a book, he had “transferred information”.

Toronto: July 21 And again you attempt to define terms so they fit into your theory. If I lend you a book, I have successfully “transferred information” to you. The fact that you don’t read it is not relevant.

Or I could have stayed and had my objections ignored by Keith, who (along with you) continues promoting this farce to this very day. How interesting would that have been?

Keith: Answer me! UB: You added extraneous items to your reformulation. Keith: Answer me! UB: You added extraneous items to your reformulation. (repeat ad nauseum)

No thanks. I was there to debate Bill. We debated. He lost. - - - - - - - - Now as for my question to you: “On what grounds do you refuse to answer”… It does not go unnoticed that the answer to your question for me was already on this thread before you even got here; it remains on this thread even now, and has been copied and pasted several times. Yet your answer to my question remains completely absent. It makes your repeated accusations of me doging questions appear as the profound hypocracy that it is, does it not? That’s why I ask “On what grounds do you refuse to answer”. So... Let us try one more time:

…can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing?

Why do you continue to refuse to answer a question so obvious that even a small child could answer it with ease? Upright BiPed

We also find that the codons encode the amino acid: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encode 1 a: to convert (as a body of information) from one system of communication into another; especially: to convert (a message) into code b: to convey symbolically 2 : to specify the genetic code for Joe

And Miller misrepresents what I say- no surprise there: The codon is a REPRESENTATION of the amino acid. There isn’t any physio-chemical connection with the codon and the amino acid it represents- meaning there isn’t any physio-chemical connection that determines which codon represents which amino acid- ie it is arbitrary, yet it is maintained throughout living organisms.

what the hell are mRNA, tRNA and aaRS, do you think? They form a physico-chemical chain!

Nothing in that chain DETERMINES which codon is for which amino acid. And if teh codon is not a representation of the amino acid it codes for then what the heck do you call it- seeing that common usuage would say it is a representation? (it sure as heck isn't the amino acid yet the amino acid shows up when the codon is in the right position in the ribosome) Here ya go Allan: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/courses/27619/codon.html

The DNA codons representing each amino acid are also listed.

Evolve how? How can we test if it evolved via blind and undirected chemical processes? Can you provide a testable hypothsis for such a thing?

Evolve by independent amendment of binding sites, in tRNA, aaRS, ribosome etc.

The cowardly equivocation continues... Joe

Toronto continues its desperation with its strawman:

A “non-material” designer cannot even “touch” matter since he has no matter to “touch” with.

A non-material designer can manipulate matter using energy- just as I said. Joe

onlooker, The matter at hand is that you have been exposed as a fraud. And just because you can continue to spew your fraudulent claims that doesn't make them any less fraudulent. Why is it that the only people who have difficulty understanding Upright Biped's argument the same people who have an anti-ID agenda? Joe

Upright BiPed,

It is not at all obvious you have any grounds to be questioning the good faith of others in regards to this conversation.

Given the fact that you have repeatedly failed to answer direct questions about your argument here at UD and that you have a proven history of running away in another forum when confronted with such questions, it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to commit to working in good faith to clarify your position before asking others to go to the effort of rephrasing your prose.

You can demonstrate your good faith now by simply answering the question you avoided earlier:

This is exactly the lack of good faith on your part that I have pointed out before. If you're interested in being understood, you will directly answer questions and provide precise definitions for your terms. If you are afraid of being clear because you don't want to risk being proven wrong, you will use transparently evasive tactics like answering questions with questions, clearly hoping to lead your interlocutors down a rhetorical rathole leading as far away as possible from discussion of your argument. It's easy to see where your predilections lie.

On what grounds do you refuse to answer?

Asked and answered at least twice. Your pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Let's get back to the matter at hand. I've provided two possible definitions of "arbitrary" as used in your argument above. Do either of these correspond to your intended meaning? If not, please provide a clear and precise definition. D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. onlooker

Oops the last two quotes in 575 belong to Allan Miller Joe

Alan sez:

One strong conviction I currently hold is that UB has not presented an “argument for intelligent design”.

So what? You don't seem to understand much of anything. Ya see Alan, necessity and chance cannot account for transcription and translation- no one seems to know how to even test such a thing. So we take that and add the fact that it meets the design criteria and we reach a design inference.

A triplet that finds itself in the translational frame suddenly comes to ‘symbolise‘ an amino acid?

The codon is a REPRESENTATION of the amino acid. There isn't any physio-chemical connection with the codon and the amino acid it represents- meaning there isn't any physio-chemical connection that determines which codon represents which amino acid- ie it is arbitrary, yet it is maintained throughout living organisms. And now for some equivocation:

Because all that really matters is whether the linkage between codons and amino acids can evolve.

Evolve how? How can we test if it evolved via blind and undirected chemical processes? Can you provide a testable hypothsis for such a thing? Joe

Alan Fox chimes in with more cluelessness:

Until then, it is hard to disagree with Keith’s assessment that all you have produced so far is a classical example of an argument from personal incredulity:

As I asked before: If ID is an argument from personal incredulity, what does that make YOUR position, Alan- seeing it doesn't have any evidentiary support? I say it makes it an "argument" from your arse. Do you agree? BTW if keiiths sez something about ID it is all but guaranteed to be a misrepresentation Joe

Toronto is both daffy and goofy: Toronto:

How does “information” get transferred if one side has no matter available?

Which side doesn't have matter available? A non-material designer has all the matter in this material universe at its disposal- especially if it designed this material universe. And petrushka is so clueless it thinks that just because Lenski didn't know what mutations would occur and Intelligent Selection requires that knowedge so it fails. Joe

the whole lot of you are daffier than Goofy

Or are they are goofier than Daffy! Mung

Diogenes of yesterday, seems to have made an impression on Shapiro > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/further-thoughts-on-the-e_b_1893984.html wateron1

The desperation is reaching a fevered pitch:

Your designer is “immaterial”, and is NOT bound by physics.

Being non-material does not = NOT bound by physics in THIS MATERIAL UNIVERSE.

And that means…., he does NOT use “an instantiation of matter”, to transfer information.

1- It does NOT mean that just because YOU say so 2- YOU still don't get it- RECORD transferable information IN THIS MATERIAL UNIVERSE Keep humping those strawman arguments toronto. You alone provide ample reason why IDists should not post on TSZ. Lizzie won't be too happy with that... but don't worry the whole lot of you are daffier than Goofy Joe

The desperation is hilarious: “By reconfiguring the matter and energy in this material universe, duh. “

Then the designer “bypasses” “the laws of physics.”

Which laws and in what way are they bypassed? When humans build something they reconfigure matter and energy in this material universe. Do we also "bypass" "the laws of physics"? Talk about "just say anything". Joe

Start Codon Stop Codon Mung

1 more try to express the idea of arbitrary [although, this may have already been tried, and it's possible that the requests are being made by people who are intentionally being trolls? but I would never suspect that of anyone] the "token" (ie: string of letters) 'apple' is "arbitrary" to the fruit we call apple. If a person speaks only french, and never heard a word of english, this string of letters would be meaningless to that person. However, for that person, the string of letters 'pomme', would convey the same idea. Neither string of letters is necessary to convey the concept of the fruit apple, so they are "arbitrary" with respect to that idea es58

By reconfiguring the matter and energy in this material universe, duh. Joe

And toronto keeps shoveling the_______: That doesn’t follow. A non-material designer can/ would still use the matter and energy in this material universe to transfer non-material information in this material universe. “

He could only do that if UB is wrong.

That doesn't follow.

e.g. [non-matter(non-material designer)]—-> [matter(biological object)] *How* could a “non-material designer” do this?

By reconfiguring matter and energy, duh. Joe

and petrushka with the cowardice de jour:

Perhaps it’s time to start a fresh thread in which UPB is invited to provide a rigorous proof that a semiotic system cannot evolve from a simple replicator.

Perhaps it is time for YOU to demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes are up to the task. Or admit that you cannot and continue to provide proof that TSZ is a waste of time and bandwidth. Joe

Toronto "explains the strawman:

We have a “non-material designer”, a designer who is NOT instantiated in matter, but nevertheless, contains “information” that needs to be transferred TO matter. In order to “transfer information”, he CANNOT use matter since he is NOT composed of matter.

That doesn't follow. A non-material designer can/ would still use the matter and energy in this material universe to transfer non-material information in this material universe. 1. In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?) Nothing your strawman sez demonstrates the non-material designer RECORDED transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information. Keep humping away though- it is entertaining... Joe

toronto- Just repeating the strawman doesn't make it valid. Ya see UB has already granted that information is neither matter nor energy. toronto:

A “non-material designer” would be evidence that matter is NOT required for UB’s “transfer of recorded information”.

Please demonstrate that a non-material designer, can record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information, IN THIS MATERIAL UNIVERSE. STILL waiting... Joe

Allan Miller sez:

Three physical DNA bases are not a ‘symbolic’ representation of an amino acid. It really is that simple. In certain circumstances, a particular triplet of DNA bases may be involved in a causal molecular chain that results in a particular amino acid getting stuck on the end of a peptide chain. Equally, it may participate in regulator binding, or be edited out of mRNA, or cause nothing more than its complement to be added during DNA replication (which as a minimum all bases do, wherever they sit).

What a dolt! The argument pertains to transcription and translation in which the codon DOES represent the amino acid. What is wrong with you guys that you are forced to erect strawman after strawman in an effort to distract from the fact that your position has absolutely no evidence? Oh, never mind, I answered the question with the question... Joe

keiths chimes in with his usual nonsense about ID being an argument from incredulity, well because it is based on observations and evidence. Well keith IF that is true what does that make your position seeing it doesn't have any supporting evidence? I say it makes it an "argument" from your arse. Joe

Mr Bill chimes in with his strawman:

1. In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?)

RB: Seems to me his 1) excludes, by definition, a non-material designer, which would certainly represent and transfer information by non-material means. It follows, unless one wants to entertain an ET designer (a possibility no one takes seriously because it solves nothing), that 1) defeats the implicit 4), the conclusion that irreducible compleixity is evidence of a non-material designer.

Really Bill, it seems to you? Unfortunately you are nobody. Please demonstrate that a non-material designer, can record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information, IN THIS MATERIAL UNIVERSE. Good luck with that... Joe

One can only hope that they are staring off into a clear blue sky, which represents: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/c/crosby_stills_nash_young/clear_blue_skies.html Mung

Mung, I think you're correct. The chemistry clearly demonstrates a relatonship, and they can't have any of that. They'd be left to argue that just because it uses a relationship to transfer recorded information doesn't mean it uses a relationship to transfer recorded information. It's so much better to stare off into the distance and ponder the meaning of arbitrary. Upright BiPed

I’m hoping Keith’s and Onlooker show back up with their “revamp” of the argument at the top of the page.

If I see that I might even shut up and watch. I remember doing that in your discussion with Ms. Liddle. But what hope is there for people who believe that everything is due to mechanical necessity? Again I have to ask why "secret codes" and programs like SSH don't violate the laws of physics. Do they really not understand that is is possible to both encode/decode and encrypt/decrypt without violating any physical laws? But who, or what, determines that 'x' represents 'y'? I just can't wait for more of this 'snow' represents 'cold and wet' BS. Mung

Ah well, I don't sweat Diogenes. I'm hoping Keith's and Onlooker show back up with their "revamp" of the argument at the top of the page. pfft Upright BiPed

Diogenes: I made a complete ASS of myself at UD, but let's pretend that never happened. Is that for our benefit, or yours? Mung

Yeah, well, green is still a representation of yellow and blue. Mung

Mung at 550, You are correct. :) Upright BiPed

It appears Diogenes is having a complete meltdown over at HP as he is now attempting guilt by association on Shapiro > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/diogeneslamp0/media-genome-science_b_1881788_188302000.html wateron1

Absolutely. Apology accepted. Upright BiPed

No one has come close to refuting UB’s thesis after 549 comments. Mung

UB, I would like to apologize for flaming you in my initial posts here, in particular for my infantile insults about your intelligence. I think there are some fallacies in your logic. But you are clearly a bright person, and I apologize for asserting otherwise. Some days I've just had too much coffee, eh. You have shown a good amount of restraint here even when provoked by me, more restraint than I show, and I respect you for that. I will some up my points, more calmly this time. If you don't know symmetry breaking already, it might help to start here. To sum up, I think the origin of the genetic code would be: 1. (the first 6 or 10 amino acids) due to the preference of random anti-codons for the corresponding amino acid, as described in the paper I cited; 2. Maybe next 10 or so, constrained so that point mutations must conserve physicochemical property of the amino acid, thus preventing protein unfolding; 3. the rest, symmetry breaking. I would also hope that you try to define terms like "system", "protocol", "representation" etc. You're never going to be able to define "function"-- biochemists argue and argue about that! Biochemists will get in fistfights about defining "function", as you can see right now because of ENCODE, but they will agree on "interaction." Trust me on this. "Interaction" is safer. Avoid "function." You need to define "arbitrary" better, or, IMHO, you could try substituting the word "symmetric", which I prefer. Another possibility is to define it in terms of increased or decreased binding propensity relative to the null hypothesis (null hypothesis could be someething like: random mixture of tRNA anticodons.) That would give you a nice sliding scale from "total arbitrary" to "totally non-arbitrary." There are a lot of measures of statistical propensity. I think it would help you to try to write down an equation, that allows for gray areas, from "total arbitrary" to "totally non-arbitrary" in a sliding scale, with propensities above or below the null hypothesis; the equation should be set up so the null hypothesis yields zero. I hope you don't harbor hard feelings. I hope you find my points constructive, no matter whether we agree or not. I may or may not post here again, but when we meet again somewhere on the internet, I hope we can get along amicably, and you have a "No Flame From Diogenes" card, to be invoked at your discretion. Good luck with your hypotheses, D. Diogenes

Diogenes:

You haven’t defined “representation”, “system”, “protocol”, “arbitrary” or “function”. Ad hoc, ad hoc, ad hoc.

And your objection is self-refuting. Mung

By arbitrary, we do not mean random. We mean, “could have been otherwise” within the constraints of nature. – David L. Abel

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-433459 And yet they are STILL asking what is meant by arbitrary. More rounds of definition derby anyone? And here's the brilliant argument put forth by Diogenes: Upright BiPed has not defined every term he uses. Therefore, the term is undefined. Therefore, any usage of the term is ad hoc. Now, is it just me, or does Diogenes not understand the meaning of 'ad hoc'? Mung

Diogenes:

Natural selection is not blind. What part of the word “selection” do you not understand?

What part of the word "selection" did Darwin not understand? Mung

Diogenes:

Rain is a representation of barometric pressure, humidity, temperature, etc.

And green is a representation of yellow and blue. Mung

Diogenes, You are confused. I said evolutionism doesn't make any testable predictions and as some sort of refutation you cite creationists and IDists. And no, I am not your secretary so I will not be wasting my time copying an entire page just so that you can see for yourself that you are FoS. Joe

Diogenes:

Are you an ID proponent, or an intelligent person?

Yes.

See, I can do it too!

Not very well, though. Mung

UB: “what does it represent and to whom or what does it represent it to – and how do you know?” I still would like an answer. If a “representation” is an arrangement of matter, and if “not a representation” is an arrangement of matter, then how do you know one from the other? You have given no equations for anything. But I can give equations. Use Shannon's equation of mutual information between property X and property Y. If X has mutual information about Y, I would say it represents Y, possibly in an encoded form. A representation does not have to represent a thing "to" a person. Why does it need to represent something "to" a person? How is "representing to" mathematically defined? Shannon's equation of mutual information at least has a mathematical defintion. No ad hoc re-definition on the fly. Diogenes

Onlooker, It is not at all obvious you have any grounds to be questioning the good faith of others in regards to this conversation. You may or may not even care whether you have standing, but perhaps others do – particularly given that your bad faith participation has been documented here. You made an immense to-do about a term I used, and went on and on about it. Consequently, you were asked to participate in an example which specifically illustrates the concept. You can demonstrate your good faith now by simply answering the question you avoided earlier:

…can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing?

On what grounds do you refuse to answer? Upright BiPed

I have been operating under the apparently unsophisticated belief that for something to represent something else to a system, it required a system. I thought that when a tree fell and created a sound, those sound waves would travel to an observer, where the observer would convert those sound waves into neuro-sensory input by means of an auditory system, and that sensory input would travel to the auditory cortex where it would be translated by systematic protocols to inform the higher cognitive functions of the observer, resulting in “Hey, a tree fell”. Yet Diogenes has corrected me on this. According his intellect, which I am sure we can all agree is enormous, when a tree falls and creates a sound, you can remove the observer, the auditory system, the transfer of neuro-sensory input, the auditory complex, the translation protocols, the higher cognitive function, and even the “Hey a tree fell” – and, quite incredibly, it still represents “Hey a tree fell”. In fact, according to Diogenes, there never even had to be an observer at any point in the history of the universe, and it would still represent “Hey a tree fell”. Isn’t that brilliant? Isn’t it? Representations don’t need systems in order to represent anything.

Yes, a sound is a representation of something; whether or not it is in a “system” is irrelevant.

But even so, I am a little bit of a stickler for details. So when he brought up this groundbreaking idea, I simply asked for some substantiation. I asked if a sound is a representation of something even though there is no system for it to represent anything to, then: “what does it represent and to whom or what does it represent it to – and how do you know?” I still would like an answer. If a “representation” is an arrangement of matter, and if “not a representation” is an arrangement of matter, then how do you know one from the other? Upright BiPed

Joe: Then shut up about it because obvioulsy you don’t have a clue. Please copy in page 303. What are you hiding? Diogenes

Diogenes: Then why did creationists like Henry Morris, Carl Baugh, Clifford Burdick, Walter Lammerts, Tom Willis, Malcolm Bowden, Casey Luskin, Cornelius Hunter, etc. promote frauds or hoaxes in order to disprove evolution? Joe: Most likely to expose the fraud. Really? You mean, for example, like when Henry Morris, Baugh, Burdick etc. promoted the fake manprints (supposedly co-existing with dinosaur footprints) at Paluxy, Texas? And the Calaveras Skeleton? The Freiberg Skull? Moab Man? Humanus bauanthropus? Homo phenanthropus mirabilis? And the Coso artifact? And Kouznetsov's made-up experiments on creatine kinase that thrilled the creationist world in the 90's, with a paper that had 50+ citations from non-existent journals completely made up? How about Luskin's many hoaxes? The time he wrote about how Lucy's bones were supposedly scattered and might be from more than one species-- using a quote he said was from Johanson about Lucy at Hadar-- but in fact was from Tim White about OH-62 at Olduvai? Or when Luskin said Lucy was the most complete hominid fossil ever found-- coffee-spitting stupidity? Or the time Luskin lied about Homo habilis and said "its skull is most similar to baboons", citing a paper that did not remotely conclude that? The time he said regulatory elements are believed by scientists to be "Junk DNA"? (This would surprise the Nobel Committee that gave Jacques Monod the Nobel for discovering their essential functioning in 1965.) Or the time Luskin said the evidence was against Human chromosome 2 being a fusion of two ape chromosomes, citing papers that said the opposite-- and Carl Zimmer proved he was lying, and Luskin doubled down with more lies? Or how about the time he wrote, in order to disprove the fusion of human chromosome 2, "In most of our experience, individuals with the randomly-fused chromosome can be normal, but it is very likely that their offspring will ultimately have a genetic disease. A classic example of such is a cause of Down syndrome"? Thereby making us wonder if perhaps he had Down syndrome himself? Diogenes

diogenes:

I don’t have a copy on hand.

Then shut up about it because obvioulsy you don't have a clue. Joe

Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. Please provide the quote or admit that you made it up. I don't have a copy on hand. Since you do, please copy the text from page 303. Diogenes

diogenes:

Joe, ya got Dawkins, not me.

YOU are a nobody wrt to science and evolution. I also cited Coyne and I could cite more. OTOH you have nothing but denial... Joe

Evolutionism does not make any testable predictions.

Then why did creationists like Henry Morris, Carl Baugh, Clifford Burdick, Walter Lammerts, Tom Willis, Malcolm Bowden, Casey Luskin, Cornelius Hunter, etc. promote frauds or hoaxes in order to disprove evolution?

Most likely to expose the fraud. Joe

Joe, ya got Dawkins, not me. "The Blind Watchmaker" is the dumbest book title ever. Diogenes

As for Joyce and Lincoln- they designed RNAs and all that happened was what they designed could catalyze ONE bond, which means they had to feed the system other RNAs that only required one bond. Joe

Joe: Evolutionism does not make any testable predictions. Then why did creationists like Henry Morris, Carl Baugh, Clifford Burdick, Walter Lammerts, Tom Willis, Malcolm Bowden, Casey Luskin, Cornelius Hunter, etc. promote frauds or hoaxes in order to disprove evolution? If you promote fraudulent evidence or hoaxes in order to disprove evolution, you're admitting it makes testable predictions, and your authorities invented fake "evidence" to contradict it. Diogenes

Jerry Coyne says:

Instead of adopting the most parsimonious explanation—that the well-understood, blind, and materialistic process of natural selection is the real cause of “design,” with no involvement of God whatsoever—theologians now explain that gradual evolution is the most sensible way for God to have created.

Then we have:

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

and another source

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

and dawkins:

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

Joe

diogenes:

Evolution produces so many testable predictions about living organisms, that Joe must retreat to non-living matter.

Evolutionism does not make any testable predictions. But then again you don't seem to know what the theory of evolution is actually about. Joe

diogenes- I have read page 303 and what you say isn't there. Please provide the quote or admit that you made it up.

Natural selection is not blind. What part of the word “selection” do you not understand?

LoL! There isn't any selecting going on. Darwin wanted to fool people and it worked. Dawkins says natural selection is blind- read "The Blind Watchmaker"- Jerry Coyne says:

And, indeed, this is what I teach—that natural selection, and evolution in general, are material processes, blind, mindless, and purposeless.

You lose. Perhaps you want to try again. Joe

Diogenes: There is plenty of evidence that the self-replicating RNA world preceded the protein-world. Joe: Present it then. I already presented enough, but the evidence must be buried to help assuage Joe's feelings of inadequacy. And then demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce self-replicating RNA. Evolutionists don't believe in blind and undirected forces. But here, when Joe is proven to be wrong about the facts, want to retreat to non-living molecules. Evolution produces so many testable predictions about living organisms, that Joe must retreat to non-living matter. Retreat! Retreat! You concede the field of all living species to us. Fine; we've done ALL the heavy lifting for 150+ years with zero help from creationists. Diogenes

Joe According to the modern synthesis, it is. Ya see natural selection is blind and the mutations are undirected. And natural selection, a result, doesn’t do anything. Natural selection is not blind. What part of the word "selection" do you not understand? If Joe sees a store with a sign, "We have a great selection", Joe thinks, "They have a great blindness." Is it possible to find a word in English that is less blind, less random, than "selection"? Joe's playing dumb, pretending like he has zero reading comprehension. I've seen creationists play that game before. "Me no understand strange words coming from mouth." Diogenes

Joe: Please tell me the page number of Meyer’s alleged prediction pertaining to the nucleotides. Page 303. Ya see, if you would like a totting up of that prediction with some other predictions from Meyer's book, and how they were experimentally disproven by the time the book hit the bookshelves, you can see the collision where Meyer's philosophical bafflegab is crushed by experimental science, here. That source is a Christian website. But, you can call them "materialist" or "new atheist" if it helps you deal with your feelings of inadequacy. Also relevant from Meyer's book: Meyer's Prediction #3 “Future experiments will continue to show that RNA catalysts lack the capacities necessary to render the RNA-world scenario plausible.” The source above discusses related issues: At the time of writing "Signature of the Cell", Dr. Meyer correctly concluded that no RNA molecule had ever been evolved in a test tube which could do more than join two building blocks together. However, while the book was in press, Gerald Joyce and Tracey Lincoln [of Scripps] published an article in Science in which they demonstrated that evolved-RNA can take on a second function, the all-important replication activity. In just 30 hours their collection of RNA molecules had grown 100 million times bigger through a replication process carried out exclusively by evolved RNA molecules. So another dead-end pronouncement by Meyer was breached even while the book was in press. Aw, too bad, little Timmy! Anybody remember the part where Meyer insinuates that Jack Szostak, abiogenesis researcher, was a nutty crank? The same year Meyer wrote that, Szostak got the Nobel Prize. Meyer got to talk in church basements. Meyer's habit of firing off moronic falsehoods about it like he's an expert, is taken down by an actual professor of information theory, Jeff Shallit, here. Anybody remember this Meyer classic (inspired by Jonathan Wells' crank theories)? Meyer's Prediction #6 “Sophisticated imaging techniques will reveal nanomachines (turbines) in centrioles that play a role in cell division. Other evidence will show that malfunctions in the regulation of these machines are responsible for chromosomal damage.” Disproven experimentally years ago-- Wellsian garbage. The "messiah" who ordered Wells to destroy Darwinism, Sun Myung Moon, didn't live to see Wells achieve anything at all: none of the promised new cancer treatements, and no little turbine centrioles. Diogenes

toronto- give up. No matter how you phrase it your feedback STILL doesn't do anything, natural selection is still blind, still a result and still impotent. Joe

And toronto continues to make my point for me: ” So when you have a “feedback” of whatever survives to reproduce, it really isn’t saying anything.”

But you can’t just focus on the organism.

The organisms are what is surving and reproducing. So that is the feedback. The results from one generation are fed into the input of the next.

If the environment changes, what used to be positive feedback may become negative and what was negative may pay off with better survival.

True and that does not help you at all.

It is the environment that “controls” the feedback loop, not the organism.

The environment has an influence on the feedback and sometinmes, as with catastrophes, it can wipe out entire populations which wipes out all feedback. Joe

And toronto proves my point wrt natural selection: “Ya see natural selection is blind and the mutations are undirected. And natural selection, a result, doesn’t do anything. “

Joe, you need to ask kairosfocus about how feedback is used within a system. “Natural selection” works like feedback in evolution. Am attribute that helps your population survive is “positive” feedback while an attribute that prevents your population from surviving, is “negative” feedback.

I know all about feedback and anything that is good enough, according to Mayr, survives to reproduce. IOW whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce. That could be a loss of a trait as well as just a changing of a trait. It could be behaviour, which trumps waiting for the right mutation, and that means NO genetic change attributed to natural selection. Then there is cooperation which allows even the weakest to survive and reproduce. So when you have a "feedback" of whatever survives to reproduce, it really isn't saying anything. Joe

There is a way to test diogenes claim that shadows represent the people- get a crowd of people together, all wearing the same clothes, and have someone point to each shadow and identify the person it represents- the choosing party knows all the people but can only use the shadows for identification. Joe

diogenes- Please tell me the page number of Meyer's alleged prediction pertaining to the nucleotides. Joe

diogenes

Ya see, evolution is not a “blind and undirected” process.

According to the modern synthesis, it is. Ya see natural selection is blind and the mutations are undirected. And natural selection, a result, doesn't do anything.

I already cited one paper, above, about the stereochemical transition betweeen the RNA-world and the protein-world.

What RNA world?

There is plenty of evidence that the self-replicating RNA world preceded the protein-world.

Present it then. And then demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce self-replicating RNA.

A basic prediction of RNA world is that all four nucleotides should be formed spontaneously, which we’ve known is true since 2009.

Unfortunately that doesn't even help you. Joe

Upright BiPed, It just occurred to me that there is another possible definition of "arbitrary" that I can see, based loosely on what you've written thus far: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. In your example of the word "apple" written on a piece of paper evoking a memory of an actual apple, it seems that you mean that the configuration of the whole system of markings on paper and mental state is arbitrary because a different mental state could produce a different memory for the same markings (for example, if "apple" means something else in a different language). Is this closer to your meaning? onlooker

Errata: Me: In Stephen Meyer’s risible book, he predicted it would be proven that all nucleotides could not be formed spontaneously. Meyer’s ID “predictions” were experimentally disproven by the time his book hit the bookshelves– what a maroon. Diogenes

Joe: Do you have any evidence that blind and undirected processes can produce the transcription and translation processes we observe? Ya see, evolution is not a "blind and undirected" process. I already cited one paper, above, about the stereochemical transition betweeen the RNA-world and the protein-world. There are plenty on that topic. There is plenty of evidence that the self-replicating RNA world preceded the protein-world. The core of the ribosome is RNA, with proteins stuck about the outside, like decorations. The enzymatic machinery of the ribosome is performed by RNA-- it's a ribozyme. RNA can catalyze reactions as ribozymes, regulate itself (including feedback mechanisms) via riboswitches, and it's been experimentally proven that RNA can replicate itself. A basic prediction of RNA world is that all four nucleotides should be formed spontaneously, which we've known is true since 2009. In Stephen Meyer's risible book, he predicted it would be proven that all nucleotides could be formed spontaneously. Meyer's ID "predictions" were experimentally disproven by the time his book hit the bookshelves-- what a maroon. Diogenes

@Steve, Getting owned by Shapiro was not enough punishment? I kicked Shapiro's tail-- all he could do was dribble "You're stuck in the 1970's" over and over and over. I think he's been replaced by spambot. You say Shapiro "won", so back that up. Since you understand Shapiro's "winning" argument so well, why don't you copy it here? Let's see how good is his best argument: endlessly copying and re-copying "You're stuck in the 1970's" over and over, until his nurse tells him it's time for his Geritol. Diogenes

onlooker and diogenes- Do you have any evidence that blind and undirected processes can produce the transcription and translation processes we observe? What would be the testable hypothesis for such a claim? Joe

@Mung: I sure wish Diogenes would make up her mind. Were they fixed by physical laws, or did they evolve? That's like asking: were the hydrodynamics of the shape of the dolphin, ichthyosaur, dorado tuna, etc, fixed by physical laws, or did they evolve? You have not demonstrated it is either/or, that these are non-overlapping categories. Are you an ID proponent, or an intelligent person? See, I can do it too! Diogenes

Listen closely… by my logic the material representations and protocols which allow the genetic code to function, have existed on Earth long before the appearance of mankind, and needed nothing from him. Listen closely... By your logic the material representations and protocols which allow my footprint to represent my foot, existed long before I perceived my footprint. If all mankind is exterminated tomorrow, it is still a representation of my foot. a) Representations are things that operate within a system... The question is not whether the tree makes a sound; it does that as a matter of physical necessity...The question is whether or not that sound is a representation of something if there is no system in which it operates. Yes, a sound is a representation of something; whether or not it is in a "system" is irrelevant. You did not "system" and that's deliberate. By allowing yourself to re-define "system" on the fly, you eliminate counter-examples in an ad hoc fashion. No, you do not get to re-define terms just because you're losing. You do not get to re-define "system" in an ad hoc fashion each time counter-examples are given. You will re-define "system" in an ad hoc fashion so that only the genetic code, and intelligently designed text/language, constitute "systems". All other examples which satisfy the definition "system", you will eliminate by progressively re-defining "system" on the fly in an ad hoc fashion. Your tack is once again tautology. Now listen closely. Here's a system. High pressure system, low humidity --> No rain Low pressure system, high humidity --> Rain No rain --> dry jacket. Rain --> Wet jacket Rain is a representation of barometric pressure, humidity, temperature, etc. It is fixed by physical laws and not arbitrary. Atmosphere, rain and jacket constitute a system. Representations (in the form of nucleic triplets) are materially arbitrary to the effects they evoke. No they are not. If CGA yields aspartate, you're dead. That's a heck of an effect. You still haven't defined "arbitary." Different triplets yield different amino acids because there is a material protocol instantiated in the system to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the triplets and the amino acids. You have not demonstrated "the otherwise non-existent relationship between the triplets and the amino acids." That needs to be experimentally proven. I cited a paper which experimentally disproved it. You have not defined "protocol" nor "system." Again, you want to re-define "protocol" on the fly to eliminate counter-examples. You do not get to re-define terms just because you're losing. it is the establishment of an arbitrary relationship within a physically determined system. "Arbitrary" and "system" not defined. "Arbitrary relationship" not proven experimentally, rather, already disproven experimentally. I demonstrated that evidence in the argument...What it has in common are the two arrangments of matter as described in the argument above, as well as the production of unambiguous function "Function" also not defined. More ad hoc. By allowing yourself to re-define terms on the fly, you can eliminate counter-examples in an ad hoc fashion. You don't get to re-define terms just because you're losing. and the preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation. You haven't demonstrated that *ANY* component of the genetic code is arbitrary! Decades of molecular biology prove it's not arbitrary! I got it from work by people such as Francis Crick, James Watson... No, you didn't. If they actually said that, which I doubt, they were wrong. Disproven experimentally. The nucleic triplet CTA is an identified causal structure within the process of protein synthesis, but it does not exist in that order as matter of physical law. You haven't demonstrated that experimentally, nor have you demonstrated that it's relevant. Again: experimental evidence shows that random anticodons have preferences in terms of which amino acids they bind, and the amino acids they corresponds to, in the canonical code, are those for which the anticodon has an increased propensity. I doubt Crick and Watson ever said anything against that, but if they did, they've been disproven. It ain't the 50's anymore. Nor have you demonstrated that it's relevant. Suppose the relationship were "arbitrary", which for you appears to mean "non-deterministic." So what? In physics there's a phenomenon called symmetry-breaking, which led to the discovery of the Higgs boson. Symmetric systems go to non-symmetric systems all the time. It's ubiquitous. Higgs boson, electroweak theory, magnetization, convection currents. It's everywhere. Suppose that the laws of chemistry were totally different than we know they are-- so that random anticodons did not have a preference to bind certain amino acids (which experimentally, we know is false in this universe). In your imaginary Middle Earth universe, where there is a symmetric relationship between random anticodons and amino acid binding, the symmetry could turn to non-symmetry by symmetry breaking, a well-studied phenomena. So what? Happens all the time in physics. Magnetization, electroweak theory, Higgs boson, convection currents. Why not one more broken symmetry among many? A "frozen accident", as biochemists used to say about the genetic code, before... Before we learned, experimentally, it was not an accident, as we now know. Unlike your Middle Earth fantasy world, in this universe random anti-codons were never symmetric in their binding to amino acids. You haven't defined "representation", "system", "protocol", "arbitrary" or "function". Ad hoc, ad hoc, ad hoc. Tautology, tautology. Just defining "function" is something biochemists have never agreed on. You'll redefine them all on the fly to eliminate (non-human language, non-genetic) counter-examples. You don't get to redefine terms just because you're losing. I prefer using the words "symmetric" and "non-symmetric", not "arbitrary" and "non-arbitrary", because that is physics-talk, and it is well-defined. Diogenes

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker, since you and Keith have consistently demonstrated how enamoured you are with your abilities to rewrite my argument, why don’t you get with Keith and revamp the OP argument at the top of this page, and post it here. We can all take it from there.

Will you work with us in good faith to correct any misunderstandings while maintaining the clarity that keiths typically provides? If so, I will delurk on TSZ and ask.

Got any guts?

As I pointed out to kairosfocus when he tried so unconvincingly to explain why he wouldn't participate on TSZ, it doesn't take any physical courage to look at words on a screen. Being willing to make your argument understandable and thereby risking being proven wrong does take a little intellectual courage. Are you prepared for that? onlooker

Upright BiPed, My apologies for the delay in replying. Family comes first. I hope you had a good Rosh Hashanah.

The word "arbitrary" is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word "apple" written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

Okay, in the interest of progressing the discussion, let me take a stab at a definition based on this. The need for a precise definition comes from your paragraph 3:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

So, based on these two quotes, my first attempt is: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is this really what you mean? It doesn't feel quite right to me because your example of a word triggering a memory does involve a physical process of observing the written word, the automatic firing of neural connections, and the retrieval of memories from a physical brain. Is your definition of "arbitrary" referring to the fact that this is a multistep process? onlooker

Apparently, Toronto, Keith, RB, et al couldn't take the heat. So looks like Diogenes is here as the big gun of TSZ. But Diogenes. Getting owned by Shapiro was not enough punishment? A glutton if not a brighter bulb. UP, I salute your tenacity and perseverance in the face of such sophistry and pedantry. Steve

Diogenes,

UB, you invited me here to give you a hiding, so it’s your sado-masochism and none of my own.

Actually I brought you here because I knew you don't think things through, and there would be no doubt you'd maintain that standard here.

What utter ad hoc nonsense. However, it is what I expected you to say. It is not necessary for someone to see a representation in order for it to be a representation.

You like to argue by simple assertion. Its the unambiguous sign of an undisciplined and inadequate position, tyically thrown together to serve a purpose other than accuracy. a) Representations are things that operate within a system. Without being able to observe a representation operating within a system, you wouldn't be able to distinguish (within any certainty) a representation from any other arrangement of matter. b) It is an anthropocentric fallacy for a human to say that a shadow on the ground is a representation of something without recognizing that he/she has placed him/herself in the system, and it is he/she that has imbued that shadow with the status of ”a representation”. This is an undeniable position; one which must be granted in the attempt to deny it. Without the observer, the blocking of light from some portion of the ground is nothing more than the state of the ground being lit, or not.

This is sort of Zen koan ooga booga, if a tree falls and no one hears it, it doesn’t make a sound. Oogity boogity. Sorry, I don’t smoke enough dope to consider that science.

Perhaps a puff could have stopped you from making such a flagrant disanalogy. The question is not whether the tree makes a sound; it does that as a matter of physical necessity (just as a shadow forms on the ground). The question is whether or not that sound is a representation of something if there is no system in which it operates. If the answer is yes, then what does it represent and to whom or what does it represent it to - and how do you know?

Is a nucleic acid triplet a representation of an amino acid? Or is it not?

Yes, in the system it operates within. And we observe it. But our observation is not what establishes the relationship between triplet and amino acid. That is established in material isolation within the system by the aaRS. It was that way long before we showed up.

By your logic, nucleic acid triplets were not representations of amino acids, until evolutionist scientists cracked the genetic code, which was predicted to be near-universal based on evolutionist assumptions.

Later...when the lights come on in your vast upstairs, I hope you'll return to this statement, where you can then marvel, as I have, at how utterly stupid it is.

By your logic, after evolutionist scientists cracked the genetic code, it abruptly became a representation and wasn’t before. Oogity boogity.

I must now sadly admit, I have entirely misjudged you. I had no idea that your ability to establish a coherent argument was so lacking, if not non-existent. Listen closely... by my logic the material representations and protocols which allow the genetic code to function, have existed on Earth long before the appearance of mankind, and needed nothing from him.

You want to say: “all representations that involve intelligence, involve intelligence.” Here you’re going to define “representation” in such a way that intelligence *MUST* be involved, then win by tautology.

Arguments have premises leading to conclusions. You cannot point to anything in the argument at the top of this page that reflects anything that you have said. Far from me asserting a tautology, you have simply asserted a ficton, and are intent on attacking it. This is a serious flaw. Why are you unable to attack the actual argument?

You expect me to take pity on you because of you’re mentally handicapped, and allow you the right to change the rules ad hoc. No, that’s tautology and the mentally handicapped have no right to it. This ain’t the Special Olympics, Timmy.

Are you certain that slinging shit at me is going to weaken my argument and make yours stronger? And what about the tone of your shit slinging? Is it that the harsher the tone, the stronger you imagine yourself?

You have no evidence that the representation involved in the genetic code has any qualities in common with representations that have been perceived by intelligences, before they’re perceived by intelligences.

Actually that is not true. I demonstrated that evidence in the argument, which you have yet to understand, much less refute. What it has in common are the two arrangments of matter as described in the argument above, as well as the production of unambiguous function and the preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation.

What ignorance of biology. The genetic code is certainly not “materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes in the system”;

Nowhere do I say that the genetic code is arbitrary to the effect it evokes in the system Can you not read? Representations (in the form of nucleic triplets) are materially arbitrary to the effects they evoke. Amino acids are not constrtucted from nucleotides. At one point only the nucleic triplets exist. At another point the amino acid chian exist. Not only are they separated in time, they never materially interact. They are necessarily arbitrary,

...different triplets yield different amino acids. That’s the opposite of arbitrary.

Different triplets yield different amino acids because there is a material protocol instantiated in the system to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the triplets and the amino acids. It is not “the opposite of arbitrary”, it is the establishment of an arbitrary relationship within a physically determined system. It is that way because it must be in order to accomplish what must be accomplished.

You don’t provide any evidence that the genetic code is “not reducible to physical law.” You got that from Stephen Meyer’s risible straight-to-the-40% off-remainder bin screed, the fake “predictions” of which were experimentally disproven by the time the book hit bookshelves!

Actually I got it from work by people such as Francis Crick, James Watson. Marshal Nirenberg, Heinrich Matthaei, Mahlon Hoagland, Paul Zamecnik, etc. As far as the genetic symbols themselves being non-reducible, that comes from people like Hubert Yockey, David Abel, Leroy Hood, Marcello Barbireri, and Howard Pattee. The nucleic triplet CTA is an identified causal structure within the process of protein synthesis, but it does not exist in that order as matter of physical law. It does not exist in that order as a matter of seeking its lowest potential energy state. If that conflicts with your beliefs, then you'll just have to get over it.

It’s not supported by any scientific evidence, and contradicted by experimentation. You just assert it. Why should I care what you just assert?

The fact that the material arrangment of CTA is a rate-independent structure is not even controversial. Do you understand that? - - - - - - - - - - - - ...it is late now very late here. I will respond to the remainder of your post tomorrow. Upright BiPed

Diogenes: Sorry, I don’t smoke enough dope to consider that science. You should try giving it up completely and then you may actually get somewhere :o) PeterJ

I sure wish Diogenes would make up her mind. Were they fixed by physical laws, or did they evolve? Mung

Diogenes:

My shadow represents me.

Tell that to the judge. Mung

I suppose that next Diogenes will tell us that he has sent his shadow to represent him both in Congress and in court. How do we know it's not his shadow representing him here at UD.

Is a nucleic acid triplet a representation of an amino acid?

If we could just shine a light on those amino acids we could use their shadows to represent them and just get rid of those silly nucleic acid triplets. You'd think evolution woulda thought of that. Mung

UB, you invited me here to give you a hiding, so it's your sado-masochism and none of my own. UB: Your shadow doesn’t represent you. Your shadow is simply the state of the ground with light either being blocked by you or not. For you shadow to “represent” you would first require someone to see it. It would require someone to know what a shadow was. What utter ad hoc nonsense. However, it is what I expected you to say. It is not necessary for someone to see a representation in order for it to be a representation. This is sort of Zen koan ooga booga, if a tree falls and no one hears it, it doesn't make a sound. Oogity boogity. Sorry, I don't smoke enough dope to consider that science. Is a nucleic acid triplet a representation of an amino acid? Or is it not? By your logic, nucleic acid triplets were not representations of amino acids, until evolutionist scientists cracked the genetic code, which was predicted to be near-universal based on evolutionist assumptions. By your logic, after evolutionist scientists cracked the genetic code, it abruptly became a representation and wasn't before. Oogity boogity. You want to say: "all representations that involve intelligence, involve intelligence." Here you're going to define "representation" in such a way that intelligence *MUST* be involved, then win by tautology. You expect me to take pity on you because of you're mentally handicapped, and allow you the right to change the rules ad hoc. No, that's tautology and the mentally handicapped have no right to it. This ain't the Special Olympics, Timmy. You have no evidence that the representation involved in the genetic code has any qualities in common with representations that have been perceived by intelligences, before they're perceived by intelligences. The nucleic triplet is the source of the constraint in protein synthesis, and it is not only materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes in the system, but is also not reducible to physical law. What ignorance of biology. The genetic code is certainly not "materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes in the system"; different triplets yield different amino acids. That's the opposite of arbitrary. You don't provide any evidence that the genetic code is "not reducible to physical law." You got that from Stephen Meyer's risible straight-to-the-40% off-remainder bin screed, the fake "predictions" of which were experimentally disproven by the time the book hit bookshelves! It's not supported by any scientific evidence, and contradicted by experimentation. You just assert it. Why should I care what you just assert? I already told you: the genetic code is fixed by molecular interactions between random tRNA anti-codons and amino acid types. Actually that fixes about half the genetic code; the other half are fixed so that point mutations in the DNA correspond (mostly) to conserved physicochemical properties in the amino acids. Imprints of the genetic code in the ribosome. D.B.F. Johnson, Lei Wang. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Apr 12. “The stereochemical hypothesis postulates that the genetic code developed from interactions between nucleotides and amino acids… We show here that anticodons are selectively enriched near their respective amino acids in the ribosome, and that such enrichment is significantly correlated with the canonical code over random codes. Ribosomal anticodon-amino acid enrichment further reveals that specific codons were reassigned during code evolution, and that the code evolved through a two-stage transition from ancient amino acids without anticodon interaction to newer additions with anticodon interaction. The ribosome thus serves as a molecular fossil, preserving biological evidence that anticodon-amino acid interactions shaped the evolution of the genetic code.” Fixed by physical laws. It is a rate-independent causal structure which must evoke a response within the system through a temporally and spatially isolated protocol... Wow, do you think writing that way-- all that hypermultipolysyllabificationizing-- fools me into thinking you know molecular biology? I know your type: no science research background at all. For that matter, you could define "rock" in such a way that a rock is not a rock, until an intelligence perceives it is as a rock, until an intelligence knows it as a rock. Rocks exist; therefore, they were made by an intelligence. That's the game you're playing. Do you have any evidence for gods or spooks that's not a word game? But, as I expected, you are attempting to define both the words "representation" and "arbitary" in ad hoc fashions, so that you can re-define each of them so that, by your definition, both "representation" and "arbitrary" must involve intelligence. Just answer one question: before evolutionist scientists cracked the genetic code, was it a representation, or wasn't it? Let the weaseling begin. Diogenes

Mung, I hasten to think that Patti and Liz are the high point, but to answer your question - no. Dio and Kwok are standard-issue ideologues from the HuffPost and elsewhere. I just wanted to see how they reacted when they have to think. Upright BiPed

So has TSZ finally sent over their best and their brightest to do intellectual battle? Or has it all been downhill ever since "MathGrrl" and Liddle? Mung

And Allan Miller still thinks his imagination is evidence:

Of course, UB’s fundamental issue is that he cannot conceive of a mechanism by which ‘disorganised molecules’ can establish ‘the symbol system’. and the ‘information processing machinery’. I can.

It's settled then- science is done via imagination, evidence be damned... Joe

...and bring John Kwok with you. Upright BiPed

Diogenes, if this little piddle is supposed to represent your demolishing of ID, I would say you failed miserably. There's no need to run off claiming you haven't the time. Now that you've made an ass of yourself, come back and take the argument at face value. You can start by reading for context. You certainly blew it the first time around. Upright BiPed

Diogenes,

My shadow represents me.

Your shadow doesn't represent you. Your shadow is simply the state of the ground with light either being blocked by you or not. For you shadow to "represent" you would first require someone to see it. It would require someone to know what a shadow was. It would require someone to know that a shadow could be cast on the ground. It would require someone to know that a shadow had a source. It would require someone to know that your body can block light, and that your body might be blocking that particular light. None of that is "in" your shadow. Moreover, when your shadow is seen, it is not then a shadow that is traveling through their optical nerve, its is a physically transcribed representation of that image that must be translated by a second arrangement of matter in their visual cortex. Your anthropocentric projection is a non-starter.

"My footprint..."

Same mistake.

Same goes for the genetic code– fixed by molecular interactions between random tRNA anti-codons and amino acid types. Fixed by physical laws.

The nucleic triplet is the source of the constraint in protein synthesis, and it is not only materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes in the system, but is also not reducible to physical law. It is a rate-independent causal structure which must evoke a response within the system through a temporally and spatially isolated protocol (which is does not and cannot physically interact with). This is not even controversial biology; people have won Nobel prizes demonstrating it.

Upright Biped invited me here to give him a hiding, it took me 45 seconds. That’s all I have time for, and all that’s needed to refute this ooga booga. You monkeys need to get over the evolution thing.

It took you 45 seconds to make two anthropocentric projections and fail a entry-level biology exam. Congratz. Upright BiPed

Ugh, ooga booga. It's like talking to witch doctors. UB: If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing). No, the arrangement need not be "necessarily arbitrary" to the thing it represents. Me and my shadow. My shadow represents me. My footprint represents my foot. My fingerprint represents my finger. Not arbitrary-- required by physical laws. Same goes for the genetic code-- fixed by molecular interactions between random tRNA anti-codons and amino acid types. Fixed by physical laws. Upright Biped invited me here to give him a hiding, it took me 45 seconds. That's all I have time for, and all that's needed to refute this ooga booga. You monkeys need to get over the evolution thing. Diogenes

By arbitrary, we do not mean random. We mean, "could have been otherwise" within the constraints of nature. - David L. Abel

To communicate a meaningful or functional message, first, we must arbitrarily assign an alphabet of usable symbols. Next, we must again arbitrarily assign meaning to letters or small groups of alphabetical characters, the equivalent of words. This is done according to arbitrarily defined rules, not constraints or laws. The rules are freely selectable, not constrained by physicodynamics. In short, symbol systems are entirely free, formal and cybernetic. Each choice of symbol represents a discrete unit of control - David L. Able, Editor, The First Gene

Does anyone have any idea why the folks over at TSZ think any of this for some reason needs to violate physical laws? Do spies violate physical laws when they come up with "secret codes"? Does SSH violate physical laws? Mung

Fidelity of information transmission in biological systems and its (non)adaptive evolution

Evolution of life is fully based on digital information transmission processes - across generations via genome replication and from the genome to the effector molecules (RNA and proteins) ... - Eugene V. Koonin, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution

Mung

I see that Alan Fox has commented on my argument. He says he's not convinced, yet he is either mistaken in his understanding, or simply ignores what is known:

Interactions between molecules involve their chemical properties; charge, conformation, level of hydrophilic and lipophilic residues etc. Nothing analogous to language goes on here. I respectfully remain unconvinced of UB’s argument from incredulity.

Firstly, the relationship between the arrangement of matter that evokes the effect within the system must be (by necessity) arbitrary to the effect it evokes. It is just that - an arbitrary relationship. A purely material connection between these two things would lock the system into determinism and its function would immediately fail. Secondly, the arrangement of that matter which evokes the effect is not reducible to physical law; it exists entirely independent of the rate and exchange of energy. And it is that non-reducible arbitrary arrangement which constrains the output and creates biofunction. So his assumptions as to the physicality of the system are simply incorrect. I suggest reading relevant materials, the Physics of Symbols by physicist Howard Pattee would be a good place to start. Upright BiPed

F/N: It seems that, a year after Dr Liddle was repeatedly and specifically corrected that the inference to design is after rejecting not one but TWO defaults, that is still being raised as an objection over at TSZ. That speaks volumes. Let's outline again, for those unable to understand a classic flowchart [even UML preserves a version of this . . .). 1: Step one, we examine an aspect of an object, phenomenon or process (in science we examine relevant aspects, it did not matter what colour they painted the pendulum bob in assessing its oscillations). 2: Observe enough to see whether we have low or high contingency, i.e. high variability on similar initial conditions. 3: Lawlike regularities lead to inference of mechanical necessity expressible in deterministic laws, like Kepler's laws of planetary motion, or the law of the simple pendulum with small swings. Or, the observation that dropped heavy objects reliably fall under g = 9.8 N/kg near earth's surface. 4: If an aspect shows high contingency, this is not reasonably explicable on such a law. 5: Thus, we have to look at the two known sources of high contingency, chance and design. For instance, a dropped die that tumbles and settles can be fair and showing a flat distribution across {1, 2, . . . 6} or it can be artfully loaded. (This example has been cited over and over for years, that it has not sunk in yet is utterly telling on closed mindedness.) 6: The presumed default on high contingency, is chance, showing itself in some typical stochastic distribution, as is say typical of the experimental scatter studied under the theory of errors in science. Dice show a flat distribution if they are fair. Wind speed often follows a Weibull distribution, and so forth. 7: Sampling theory tells us that when we observe such a distribution, we tend to reflect the bulk of the population, and that rare, special zones are unlikely to come up in a sample that is too small. This is the root of Fisherian hypothesis testing commonly used in statistical studies. (As in far tails are special rare zones so if you keep on hitting that zone, you are most likely NOT under a chance based sample. Loaded dice being a typical case in point: as you multiply the number of dice, the distribution tends to have a sharp peak in the middle and for instance, you are very unlikely to get 1,1,1, .. or all sixes etc. The flipped coin as a two sided die, is a classic studied under statistical mechanics.) 8: So, once we have a complex enough case that deeply isolates special zones, we are maximally unlikely to see such by chance. But, the likelihood of seeing such under loading or similar manipulation is a different proposition altogether. 9: WLOG, we may consider a long covered tray of 504 coins in a string with a scanner that reports the state when a button is pushed: )) -- || Tray of coins Black Box || --> 504 bit string 10: Under the chance hyp, with all but certainty, on the gamut of the solar system, we would find the coins with near 50:50 distribution H/T, in no particular order. 11: That is an all but certain expectation on the gamut of the solar system. 12: But if instead we found the first 72 ASCII characters of this post in the 504 bits, we would have strong reason to suspect IDOW as the best explanation. There is no good reason otherwise to see the highly contingent outcome in so isolated a functional state. 13: Thus, having rejected the two defaults, coins are highly contingent and chance is maximally unlikely per the relevant distribution to provide such an outcome with FSCO/I, we infer to design. 14: In short,t eh logic involved is not so difficult or dubious, it is glorified common sense, backed up by billions of examples that ground an inductive generalisation, and by the needle in the haystack analysis that shows why it is eminently reasonable. 15: What needs to be explained is not why inference to design is reasonable, on seeing FSCO/I. Instead, it is why this is so controversial, given the strength of the case. 16: The answer to that is plain: it cuts across a dominant ideology in our day, evolutionary materialism, which likes to dress itself up in the lab coat and to fly the flag of science. That, it seems, is the real problem KF kairosfocus

“Are you stupid or just dishonest? “ Tonto:

That’s a tough call.

Yes, most likely you are both stupid and dishonest. At least that is the call we can make by reading your posts... Joe

Toronto is just a clueless strawman setter:

– I give Joe his first reading lesson.

Sed the person who obvioulsy cannot read

A) You **can’t just** “count bits” for information. B) You **can’t** “count bits” for information.

When MEASURING information that is what you do, count the bits. And guess what? We were discussing MEASURING information. IOW tonto, YOU need a reading lesson and a brain to be able to decipher what you are reading. Ya see tonto, YOU don't get to change what we were discussing and then interject your strawman into that change. Are you stupid or just dishonest? Joe

And even better- Alan Fox chimes in with more evidence-free pontificating. Note to Alan Fox- WE are waiting for KeithS to explain his "summary" line for line using Upright Biped's argument in this OP as a comparison. But unfortunately KeithS has not done so. But Alan amuses by not understanding the definition of "default". He thinks the design inference is the default even though it is reached via research, observations, knowledge and experiences. Being a default means you don't do any of that but Alan is just clueless. Also Alan, any fair observer would notice that you have never presented any positive evidence that blind and undirected processes can construct the current transcription and translation process. So you can rant and rave all you want, you still have nothing to support your position. Joe

Toronto sets up yet another strawman:

* evolutionist: You can’t just “count bits” for information.

IDist: When you are measuring the amount of information you HAVE to count the number of bits. Joe

From the OP:

It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

Chapter 2 of The Ontogeny of Information by Susan Oyama is in fact titled: The Origin and Transmission of Form: The Gene as the Vehicle of Constancy Mung

Check out the title of Chapter 4 from the following book: Information: The New Language of Science 4. Counting Bits: The Scientific Measure of Information lol Mung

...and the first 1,000,000 bits in the value of Pi as calculated by our best and finest computers.

A perfect example of what I mentioned earlier. He's just told us how to compute the amount of information by counting the bits while at the same time denying it's possible to do so. LOL! Mung

kf, Point taken. God Bless Mung

From the OP:

It is not logically possible to transfer information in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

Note how Upright BiPed's argument isn't even specific to the information processing system we find within the cell, though he often refers to it when speaking of observations (e.g., Marshall Nirenberg). However, for those who doubt: Information Theory and Molecular Biology Mung

More from Shannon:

We have represented a discrete information source as a Markoff process. Can we define a quantity which will measure, in some sense, how much information is “produced” by such a process, or better, at what rate information is produced? Suppose we have a set of possible events whose probabilities of occurrence are p1,p2,...,pn. These probabilities are known but that is all we know concerning which event will occur. Can we find a measure of how much “choice” is involved in the selection of the event or of how uncertain we are of the outcome? If there is such a measure, say H(p1,p2,...,pn), it is reasonable to require of it the following properties:

Mung

Joe:

It can be when one is attempting to MEASURE it.

Or should one desire to STORE it or even TRANSMIT it (communication) as, for example, sending text across the internet. This is what kills me about these people. They USE this stuff every day, it's there staring them in the face. They have to USE the very thing they deny in order to deny that they know what it is we are talking about. And then they REFUSE to discuss that fact. Mung

As one starwman gets exposed toronto just erects another one: “Counting bits is the way to MEASURE the information. THAT is what we have been discussing-> MEASURING the information present. No one was talking abiout any “whole story”. toronto:

Alright then, let’s count the bits in “Pi is the relationship between a circle and its diameter” and the first 1,000,000 bits in the value of Pi as calculated by our best and finest computers.

What does that have to do with anything we have been discussing? Do you really think that just because you can pull something out of your arse and post it that it means something? Geesh- expose toronto and he has a hissy-fit... Joe

The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages. The system must be designed to operate for each possible selection, not just the one which will actually be chosen since this is unknown at the time of design. - Claude Shannon

Mung

When it comes to how traffic lights function at an intersection too, the argument appears irrefutable.

1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc).

In this case, red = stop, yellow = prepare to stop, green = go.

2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

At an intersection where vehicle traffic crosses in four directions, two sets of lights that can display these three colors are installed; one set pointing both directions along the x axis and one set pointing both directions along the y axis. While one set displays green for 45 seconds, the other set displays red. When the set displaying green changes to yellow for 3 seconds, the other continues to display red. When the set displaying yellow changes to red for 45 seconds, the set that was displaying red now displays green.

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

I would say that it is self evident that lights displaying red, yellow, and green are arbitrary to and separate from vehicles which are stopped, preparing to stop, and going.

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

How to make lights display red, yellow, and green is reducible to physical law. That red = stop, yellow = prepare to stop, and green = go is arbitrary. Obviously. Or perhaps I should say, "Duh..."

5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes.

In a drivers license test, as an arrangement of matter that could be dubbed a wanna-be driver, go ahead and run a red light and see if you pass.

6. It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function.

Or dysfunction. Think, if all the lights got stuck on red. Or worse, on green...

7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information.

The representation of red = stop, yellow = prepare to stop, and green = go is made by the traffic lights, while the protocol has been instatiated in the gray matter of the licensed drivers' brains all the way from childhood storybooks through the licensing process itself.

8. During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function.

Likewise traffic signals produce the unambiguous function of traffic flow at an intersection.

9. From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process is determined by the physical forces of pair bonding. Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

This is also why drivers must be licensed! :D

10. This physical event, translation by a material protocol, as well as the transcription of a material representation, is ubiquitous in the transfer of recorded information.

"The light is red, Ethel! Hit the brakes!"

CONCLUSION: These two physical objects (the representation and protocol) along with the required preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation, and the production of unambiguous function from that arbitrary component, confirm that the transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information. It’s an arbitrary relationship instantiated in matter.

Fascinating, how the cosmos all fits together. Ain't it? jstanley01

And a clueless toronto chimes in with another strawman:

When we’re talking about “information” in the real world, “counting bits” doesn’t tell the whole story.

Counting bits is the way to MEASURE the information. THAT is what we have been discussing-> MEASURING the information present. No one was talking abiout any "whole story".

Information is NOT simply something that can be modeled by mathematics or “counted as bits”.

It can be when one is attempting to MEASURE it. Toronto should apply his skepticism to his position. Unfortunately evos are too intellectually dishonest to even attempt such a thing. Joe

PS: Those who may think it clever to play at school-yard level turnabout rhetoric games: we have a duty of care to warrant our views, and it is warrant that is the difference between opinion and knowledge. The above is well-warranted, twisting it into rhetorical pretzels simply shows willful ignorance (as is on display all along the length of this thread, on topics like, what is information and how is it measured, etc). kairosfocus

Mung, Is there an understanding that we can count, do arithmetic and other logical or mathematical operations in base 2 not just base 10? Or, that a suitably structured and contextualised string of yes-no questions [1 bit per answer!] can rapidly converge to the specific member of a set that can be structured -- especially, ordered -- in accordance with comparatives? That, this is a way to measure information? In bits? Just count 'em up . . . [E.g. seven yes/no questions suffices to specify alphanumeric characters in textual English. Strings of such are used to communicate text. Augmented with parity checks and markup characters, and we have a representation of written language such as HTML etc. This should be basic but I am wondering whether anger-fed arrogant contempt is leading to a failure to transfer background knowledge to this situation. (Let us never underestimate the stupefying power of overgrown teenager rebellion turned against God in the teeth of a more sober assessment on that subject, aka atheism. I think there is a reason why various atheism dominated circles keep on pounding away at the design theory is creationism in a cheap tuxedo slander. In a significant part, it is a coded stimulus to psychologically evoke and manipulate the judgement-warping rage at God that so plainly cripples the thinking of a lot of people who should know and do better. Certainly, that was a strong underlying problem with a lot of Marxists; who also loved to fly the flag of "science" as an ideological banner -- scientific socialism, nothing less.)] That, similarly, we can reduce any arrangement of 3-D objects to a pattern of nodes and arcs connecting them? That a wireframe representation of an object at suitably fine mesh, is a nodes-arcs view? That a functionally specific arrangement of particular components can be reduced by this means to a suitable collection of strings? Where, strings are a data structure that is like a string with beads on it, the successive beads holding information-bearing values, such as t-h-e-s-e-_-l-e-t-t-e-r-s? That D/RNA is a string structure with 4-value places? {where ASCII code uses 128 value places for alphanumeric text, each being a sub-string of seven bits, e.g A = 100 0001, a = 110 0001 (the space being for convenience in reading) But if the likes of O/L-Petrushka-KeithS-TWT-LouFCD . . . et al refuse to be docile -- teachable -- before facts and logic, such lock themselves up in a Plato's Cave world of materialist shadow shows and intoxicating smoke of burning ad hominem soaked strawmen, confused for reality. And how sweet such intoxication can feel. But, it is a species of socio-psychologically induced collective irrationality or even outright deception and lunacy. AKA groupthink. That is why in part a greater teacher than any of us warned that if the "light" in us is darkness, our darkness is deep indeed. Resemblances to the presumptions and attitudes of the "brights" are NOT coincidental. KF kairosfocus

Onlooker is either incredibly ignorant or incredibly obtuse. Either way, she's not credible. Mung

The question of units must be discussed before proceeding. It has become customary, in information theory, to consider teh information I as a dimensionless quantity (a pure number), and hence the constant K is a pure number. The most convenient unit system is based on binary digits (abbreviated "bits"). - Leon Brillouin, Science and Information Theory

Mung

If we use a logarithm to the base 2, the resulting unit of information is called the bit (a contraction of binary unit). If we use the natural logarithm, the resulting unit of information is called the nat (a contraction of natural unit). If we use a logarithm to the base 10, then the unit of information is the Hartley. It was R.V. Hartley who first suggested the use of a logarithmic measure of information (Hartley, 1928). - Norman Abramson, Information Theory and Coding

The above is from 1963! Mung

Shannon's information measures refer to entropy, conditional entropy, mutual information and conditional mutual information. They are the most important measures of information in information theory. - Raymond W. Yeung, A First Course in Information Theory

Mung

Information is the entity which makes the difference between knowing and not knowing, between being faced with a number of possibilities and between knowing the one that actually prevails. To define it quantitatively, we consider a simple case of choice between n possibilities. We hope that other cases will be reducible to this simple one or that suitable generalization of our definition will prove possible. - Amnon Katz, Principles of Statistical Mechanics: The Information Theory Approach

Mung

- How exactly can information be measured?

Try using a dipstick. Just place the pointy end in one ear and push until it comes out of the other.

- Does information, by your definition, have standard units?

Full or add a quart. You may be a little low.

- Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

No, not just any standard defionitions. Just the standard definitions of the word "information". That would be kind of silly having the definition of "information" corresponded with the definition of "onlooker". Joe

Hello Daniel, Again, my original comment relayed nothing more than amazement at the distinction between talking to an ideologue versus a person driven by evidence. And again, I did not identify that person because 1) I don't have his permission, and 2) I know that his name would be dragged through the mud for simply giving an honest opinion. I have no intention of being responsible for that. Anyone who feels slighted by my decision can simply ignore me. My argument is about evidence, not people. It stands on it own. Thanks. Upright BiPed

Mung @449: I don't understand your hostility. All I did was ask Upright Biped to identify the kinds of specialists he was referring to in his comments #205, 236, and 403. My first question about this was at comment #406. My second request for clarification was at comment #439. That's the extent of my questioning. Why did you find that so offensive? As I said before, I don't want to distract Upright Biped from defending his thesis, and if he doesn't want to respond to my questions, that's his privilege. I confess to being curious, and I humbly beg the pardon of you or anyone else who was offended by my curiosity. Daniel Daniel King

Onlooker, Here’s a definition better suited to your particular situation:

mung bucket n. A bucket used under a beer tap to catch foam and pour-offs. Can get very nasty over time, and can be used on demanding jerks at the bar as a source of a “special pour”.

Mung

Onlooker, since you and Keith have consistently demonstrated how enamoured you are with your abilities to rewrite my argument, why don't you get with Keith and revamp the OP argument at the top of this page, and post it here. We can all take it from there. Got any guts? Upright BiPed

From #305

The truth of the matter is rather obvious. You won’t answer this simple question because for you to openly admit that nothing exist between these two items except for a relationship, is to give away your ideological farm. The entire remainder of my argument necessarily follows from this simple observation, so consequently, you must not allow it.

Upright BiPed

Onlooker, please see the following: https://uncommondescent.com/science/on-seeing-credibly-knowing-about-the-invisible-in-science/#comment-433265 Mung

Onlooker, ...quoting Keith:

"I’ve asked Upright at least a half a dozen times: If you believe my summary is accurate, then tell us."

I did. And you never responded (as evidenced by the fact that Onlooker did not, and cannot, post a link to your response). You purposefully added issues to my argument that do not appear in it, and when I brought those directly to your attention, you did nothing whatsoever to correct yourself. I am not obligated any further. If you think you can demonstrate a flaw, then quit pissing in your pants and do it. Rewrite your formulation to reflect the argument as it actually is, and demonstrate it. Hell will freeze over first. Upright BiPed

Onlooker, you’ve purposefully ignored specific descriptions given on this thread:

The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

And you’ve repeatedly avoided engaging any examples provided to illuminate the term:

Let’s say you take the genetic symbol C-T-A and put it in your pocket for safe keeping. And tomorrow, you will take it out and run it through a ribosome where it will evoke its specified effect. You can now ask yourself a simple question of logic … can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing?

And all you’ve done is kept repeating:

I’m still not clear what you mean by “necessarily arbitrary”

Then you cry out the claim that I'm being “evasive”. So I ask you to substantiate your claim:

Is your claim of “evasion” valid? This is a question which can be answered by the evidence. You began by asking about a specific thing. If I then provide an example as a means to communicate that specific thing, but it turns out that the example I provided has nothing whatsoever to do with it, then that example is invalid. It may even be presumed to be an evasion of the topic. On the other hand, if that example clearly illustrates the specific thing you asked about, then that example is not only ‘not an evasion’, but is instead an entirely valid attempt to communicate the specific thing which you asked about. You may now support your claim that my example is “evasive” by stating exactly why the example I provided has nothing whatsoever to do with the specific thing you asked about. Or, you can repeat the claim without justification, in which case you run the risk of being labeled evasive yourself. Or you can change the topic away from your claim, which will then demonstrate that your claim was either unwarranted or (itself) evasive. Or you can answer the question posed by the example and we can move on to address how that demonstrates “materially arbitrary” (i.e. the specific thing you asked about). It’s your choice.

Being unable to substantiate your claim, you then return with this stupefying comment:

UB: You began by asking about a specific thing. Onlooker No, I asked what you meant by a specific term.

It must be laborious and numbing to your character, devoting yourself to this kind of cat-and-mouse effort in order to protect your beliefs – all the while maintaining the charade of an intellect. You would deserve my pity if you weren't being deliberate. Upright BiPed

onlooker:

Examples are well and good, but a precise definition is required for the kind of argument that you are attempting to construct.

Why is a 'precise' definition required? What is your definition of a 'precise' definition? Without you giving a precise definition of "precise definition" we can hardly be sure that we have given you a precise definition. I suppose your "precise" definition of a precise definition of the nature 'you'll know it when you see it.' You've given no reason for us to accept your claim that a 'precise' definition is required other than that you want one and won't advance the discussion without one. Not exactly a compelling reason for anyone to believe you. And Upright BiPed has repeatedly indicated he's not going to play "definition derby." So why do you persist? It just indicates further dishonesty on your part.

Unless you choose to directly address the open issues I’ve raised and Upright BiPed agrees with your definitions and restatements, I shan’t bother to respond to you again.

I've attempted to address the issues you've raised. Your insinuation that I haven't is just more intellectual dishonesty and further evidence of the fraudulent nature of your "participation."

I shan’t bother to respond to you again.

We could be so lucky. I think I've already called you a liar. So given that I think you're dishonest and untrustworthy as a partner in discussion do you think I really want to waste any more time on you than is absolutely necessary? Upright BiPed:

Here’s the deal Onlooker. I have no desire to play definition derby with an ideologue.

Onlooker, I hope you don't think you're special. You're just another in a long line of "sincere" people posting here at UD who really do want to "underestand" ID. haha. What a joke. Your style is so reminiscent of, for example, "MathGrrl."

Broadly defined as anything that is very disgusting.

Sorry, you're going to have to come up with a more precise definition than that. Mung

Mung,

Now here’s an interesting sequence of posts: [snip] Looks like onlooker is just a big fraud. As we can see, no real interest in discussion or understanding the argument.

It's too bad for you that all of the responses to those comments you referenced are still viewable in this thread. It makes your dishonest tactics clearly visible. I am simply asking for some definitions. Here is an example of what I mean, since you seem unclear on the concept:

2. mung Broadly defined as anything that is very disgusting. Originally from the acronym "Mash Until No Good" from the practice of making many changes to a code until it is useless. Made popular from the Saturday Night Live sketch "Wayne's World", it was in the top 5 worst things to get in your halloween bag. It was mentioned again in South Park episode 317, this time more narrowly defined as a substance which comes out of a pregnant woman's vagina when pressure is applied to her stomach. And somehow an urban legend involving corpse fluids has sprung off the term mung, though there is no documentation supporting that this is anything other than a gross-out story.

This explains why I often feel the need to shower after exchanging comments with you. Unless you choose to directly address the open issues I've raised and Upright BiPed agrees with your definitions and restatements, I shan't bother to respond to you again. onlooker

Mung,

Anyone? Then why aren’t you willing to clarify your own position? Perhaps if you were willing to discuss your own understanding of the terms involved there could be some progress.

As I have already pointed out, we are discussing Upright BiPed's definitions, not mine. If he is genuinely interested in making his argument understandable, he will define his terms. If he is more afraid of being proven wrong than he is interested in supporting his argument, he won't. Anyone can see the choice he's made thus far. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

By the way Onlooker, you keep saying that I have not responded to Keith’s revamp of my argument. I have already posted a link (249 comments ago) to where I responded immediately after he posted it. The fact is that Keith has never directly responded to my post, yet, you keep right on saying that I have not responded.

I was just browsing The Skeptical Zone and noticed that keiths has responded to this, saving me the trouble:

Upright is still desperately trying to avoid any clarification of his argument. Who knew desperation could be so boring? I’ve asked Upright at least a half a dozen times: If you believe my summary is accurate, then tell us. If you believe that my summary is inaccurate, then modify it while maintaining its clarity and explicitness. Onlooker pointed this out, and Upright replied: I responded directly to Keith immediately after he provided his revamp. He has yet to even mention that response, much less respond to it. You think otherwise? Post the link. Let’s take a look at that so-called "response": As for your rewrite, I have a very simple question to ask of you. Do you think it is relevant to this conversation that the semiotic argument does not contain a B1, or a B2, or a B3? Moreover, do you think it is relevant to the validity of my argument that you ignore the opportunity to challenge the actual premises of the argument, only to inject foreign material into the argument and challenge those instead? Did he "modify it while maintaining its clarity and explicitness"? No. Has he ever done so? No. ("You think otherwise? Post the link." Heh.) Will he ever “modify it while maintaining its clarity and explicitness”? Doubtful. He appears to be afraid that if he does, then its flaws will become obvious and it will be shot down immediately. Upright, When will you stop trying to lead us down rabbit holes and face up to your responsibility? It’s your "Semiotic Theory of ID." It’s your responsibility to support your claims. Can you use the "Semiotic Theory of ID" to show that the protein synthesis system is designed? If you can’t, then just admit it. You aren’t the first ID proponent who worked on an idea for years, only to have it explode in a ball of flames a few seconds after liftoff.

That sums up any objective observer's understanding of what happened at TSZ. Now, how about addressing those open issues? onlooker

Upright BiPed,

You began by asking about a specific thing.

No, I asked what you meant by a specific term. I asked for a definition. Examples are well and good, but a precise definition is required for the kind of argument that you are attempting to construct. If your argument is at all coherent, you must have a particular meaning in mind for the words and terms you use. I would like to know that meaning in order to understand your argument. If you are using a particular dictionary definition, please just point to it. If you are using your own definition specific to your argument, please state it as a dictionary definition. This really shouldn't be so hard for someone interested in communicating their views. You are still not behaving like that is your goal. Here are the open issues again for your convenience. A clear, coherent, direct response would be greatly appreciated. - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? - What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean in that premise? onlooker

This is great, when reality refutes your position just deny reality:

I’d say that if you have an ‘artificial ribosome’ and it does not function, you probably do not have an artificial ribosome. You have a piece of RNA. A non-functioning artificial ribosome is much like my artificial heart made of lettuce, my sundial with the ice gnomon and my sand car. It does not become what you say it is just because you say it.

I will go with the scientists who said they created an artificial ribosome that doesn't function over an obvious ideologue who doesn't have a clue.

It’s not ‘programming’ that is lacking, it is the correct molecular configuration to perform ribosome function.

Then I take it you will be joining their labs and setting them straight. Ya see they claim to have the correct molecular configuration. But I am sure you know better than all of those scientists.

Chemistry is not programming. Programming, meanwhile, is not chemistry.

True but living organisms are more than just chemistry. There is something directing the chemistry and that something is programming. Joe

Joe: I have a draft speech to follow up on, but could not resist this:

the [Darwinist/Evolutionary materialist] response is always “Eons of time cannot be reproduced in a lab and all we have is eons of time to hide behind. Oh and a bunch of promissory notes”

This brings to front-centre, the issue of the unobservable in science I headlined yesterday with the classic Tek 465 CRO as an illustration of how we infer to the unobserved in science per inductive warrant. (Which surfaces the pivotal importance of that syllabus of 18 Q's.) Electronics is built on the electron, which is accepted as very real, even a fact of day to day life, though unobserved or even unobservable. We simply see too many convergent effects that cry out for the electron as common cause. We are as a result morally certain of its reality, though what we actually see are things like little drops of oil in a Millikan oil drop exercise, drifting up/down as we try to balance the voltage against gravity. (I well recall my own frustrations working with a lab set for replicating that classic exercise!) Or, we may see curlicues of bubbles in a bubble chamber or droplets of cloud in a cloud chamber, or of course the trace on a CRO's phosphor screen. The inferred, convergent, best explanation is the electron. Never yet directly seen, and probably never will be, but an accepted fact of life from its effects. Let's clip someone politically incorrect on that sort of thinking:

Jn 3:3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3 In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]” 4 “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” 5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. 10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[d] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e] 16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him . . . 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”[h][NIV, cf here on in context and here on in context for a 101 look at some of the warranting context]

Uh huh, believing in the invisible can make a lot of good sense, to those willing to be docile -- teachable -- before the evidence. No promises for the willfully defiant who will resort to selectively hyperskeptical objections and cling to any absurdity to protect a cherished materialism proudly flying the false flag of science. (And denizens of TSZ et al, that is an exercise of the right of fair comment on responsible investigation.) In science, too, we often need to assess the reality of the unobserved. As I have repeatedly pointed out, where that addresses something like origins, that is done by inference to best current explanation in light of traces of the unobserved and cause-effect patterns and characteristic signs we can and do observe in the present. Where, if we know that per repeated experiment a certain causal factor reliably leaves certain characteristic signs, then it is reasonable to infer from sign to associated cause per that body of investigation. I have long used the case of inferring deer from deer tracks as an illustrative case on the logic involved. What happens, as was already discussed, is that the living cell is full of FSCO/I, which is a characteristic trace of IDOW, i.e. design. So, if we see FSCO/I, we are properly entitled to infer to design as cause, given what we observe and what we can see on the needle in the haystack analysis. The verbal stunts and rhetorical gymnastics we have seen for years form those disinclined to accept so simple a pattern of thought, and the number of spurious counter-examples put forth tell us that the inference is obviously cogent and well warranted. Why it is controversial is not because it is well warranted, but because it is cutting clean across an entrenched ideology that likes to dress up in a lab coat and loves to fly the flag of science, evolutionary materialism, for descriptive convenience. (And yes, TSZ, that is just a descriptive term, and accurate one.) So, it is time for some serious rethinking that requires leaving the materialist cave of shadow shows and clearing he mind from the poisonous influences of the smoke of burning ad hominem laced strawmen. KF kairosfocus

Joe: It looks like Toronto is willfully refusing to see the obvious that can be found all over Youtube etc or in any reasonable educational text. Protein synthesis, by:

a: transcription and editing mRNA, b: transfer of same, c: insertion into the ribosome from the start end, d: subsequent chained assembly of an AA sequence string on the codon sequence and termination then e: folding and despatch [Golgi post office and kinesin walking trucks on cellular highways),

. . . are obviously deeply embedded with step by step, purposeful, finite, goal directed processes using coded, symbolic digital information -- thus protocols for symbols and rules for their use -- and string data structures. In short, algorithms are at work. Next, programming uses coding of algorithms that access info held in relevant physical/logical data structures. Which is what we are seeing, in an obvious embedded processing system that uses the Ribosome as a tape-controlled NC machine. And BTW, the loaded tRNA's that convey the AA's to the ribosome as assembly site are mobile, position-arm robots with AA-loaded CCA tool tips, per Drexler's discussion. (We need to be able to recognise position-arm systems, e.g. a bird's head, beak and neck are just that. Notice, how they build nests. And, in the old days, a lot of people used their mouths as clamps in doing work. In fact, well known quadriplegic, Joni Eareckson Tada uses her mouth to draw/paint.) This is not dismissible analogy, it is highly recognisable instantiation. I guess Toronto does not know that in von Neumann's kinematic self replicator, info was to be coded in prongs, similar in the end to those on a Yale lock type key, which is a mechanical implementation of a password. In the end, the evident desperation to avoid the obvious is the dead giveaway. These objectors are ever so eager not to see what is in front of them because it is a threat to their comfortable ideology. That is why the red herrings, the ad hominem laced strawman tactics, the projections of demonisation, the just outright abuse. The clinging to the patently absurd. Those are threat reactions. What is so threatening? Obvious, the unwelcome shadow of the notorious Divine Foot drawing close to the door of their evolutionary materialist clubhouse that so proudly flies the false flag of "science." Certainly, that is what Lewontin said in almost so many words. And it certainly comes out behind the angry God-judging rhetoric of Dawkins and other so-called New Atheists. It plainly comes out in the demand to substitute license for liberty -- notice, how ever so many of us don't even know the difference and find this use of the word license strange and unfamiliar? [No prizes for guessing why . . . ] -- that is leading our civilisation over the cliff into the abyss of chaos that invites tyranny on the hope of restoring order. And so forth. It is time to wake up and come out of the cave of materialist shadow-shows and the intoxicating smoke of burning ad hominem soaked strawmen confused for reality. KF kairosfocus

Ah, more hilarity! People trying to make the reality work like their metaphor. Transcription/translation is a ‘program’? Downloadable and everything? Not just like a program? The filling in my latest chuckle sandwich.

Sez the guy who thinks all of this is just the result of a bunch of accidents and that an untestable position is scientific. Why is it that artificial ribosomes do NOT function? If their functionality was the result of their physical and chemical components then artificial ribosomes should function just as the ribosomes found inside living organisms. Artificial ribosomes are lacking the programming required by compilers to function. Joe

“Toronto- seeing that your position cannot answer anything it is very cowardly of you to expect ID to have all the answers before it can be considered scientific.” tonto:

I expect your side to be looking for answers but the response is always, “Once design is implied, we don’t need mechanisms”.

Strange that you don't expect your side to be looking for answers, but the response is always "Eons of time cannot be reproduced in a lab and all we have is eons of time to hide behind. Oh and a bunch of promissory notes"

Your first problem is, how do we know what to load?

So now my first problem is another strawman? We don't know what to load and we don't know how to load it. That is why Venter had to use every thing else in an existing cell and just inserted synthesized DNA. As for the designer, well, the designer would know the what and how just as computer designers know the what to load and how to load it to get computers to function-> they designed them. Joe

Now here's an interesting sequence of posts: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432511 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432577 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432616 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432796 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432953 Looks like onlooker is just a big fraud. As we can see, no real interest in discussion or understanding the argument. Mung

Daniel:

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

You and onlooker both seem to have issues understanding plain English. The rest of us are lowering our expectations for the two of you, that's for sure. Do you know what a Red Herring is? Hopefully you'll not respond that answering you with a question is evasive, or that what your understanding of a Red Herring is is irrelevant. Why is it the only people here who are truly interested in discussing the OP are the pro ID crowd? I wouldn't be surprised if onlooker's posts about what is going on or has gone on over at TSZ are outnumbering the number of posts she's made relative to the OP now. Anything but the issue at hand. Keep it up. But let me educate you just a tad: Upright BiPed:

The actual content of my argument doesn’t really matter; instead, you want me to address something else entirely...

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-431007 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-431008 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-431064 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432501 Upright BiPed:

Anytime you try to flank your opposition (i.e. a move into uncontested territory; a diversion away from the strength of the position in front of you) it is 100% incumbent upon you to get your opposition to take your bait. Otherwise, your maneuver will fail. That is a tactical rule that has been well understood for about 2500 years. Well… I’m not taking your bait.

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-433117 Mung

PS: I have very explicitly pointed out how observations, per logic of induction, provide support for models, hypotheses and theories. This is certainly a form of confirmation, though it does not fit your strawman inductivist who sees confirmations as equivalent to deductive proofs from undeniable axioms. if Newton, 300+ years ago, as I explicitly cited, does not fit the strawman, shouldn't that tell you something is wrong with the picture you are painting? kairosfocus

CR: You have been sufficiently answered for the moment, and have already been corrected for putting up and knocking over strawmen. when you can show me that you can accurately represent those with whom you differ, then perhaps a dialogue will be possible. In the meanwhile, you need to learn the difference between citing antecedents to acknowledge an intellectual debt and making a blind appeal to authority. When you learn to do so and to address issues on the merits rather than strawman caricatures, progress will be possible. Meanwhile, when it suits me, I will lay out the posterchild errors you are making, in more detail than this outline. KF kairosfocus

CR: [KF and I] seem to agree observations cannot be used to [confirm] theories. That being said, feel free to deny that you think knowledge is justified by authoritative sources, which shares the same flaw as inductivism.

Specifically, the fundamental flaw in creationism (and its variants) is the same fundamental flaw in pre-enlightenment, authoritative conceptions of human knowledge: its account of how the knowledge in adaptations could be created is either missing, supernatural or illogical. In some cases, it’s the very same theory, in that specific types of knowledge, such as cosmology or moral knowledge, was dictated to early humans by supernatural beings. In other cases, parochial aspects of society, such as the rule of monarchs in governments or the existence of God, are protected by taboos or taken so uncritically for granted that they are not recognized as ideas.

If my assessment is wrong, then please point out where, along with how your view differs. Please be specific. critical rationalist

Contrast you're conception of human knowledge with the following...

In that spirit, I’ll attempt to further clarify the difference between these two forms of epistemology. Critical Rationalism - We notice a problem. - We propose solutions to the problem - Since proposed solutions are essentally guesses about what is out there in reality, we… - Criticize the theory for internal consistency. Solutions that are internally inconsistent are discarded. - Criticize the theory by taking it seriously, in that we assume it’s true in reality and that all (empirical) observations should conform to them, *for the purpose of rational criticism*. “All observations” reflects all of our current, best solutions to other problems, which are themselves conjecture that have survived criticism. - This process continues until only one proposed solution is left, rather than positively supporting one particular theory. - The process starts all over again we notice another problem, such as new observations that conflict with our remaining proposed solution. Observations are themselves based on theories. So, when a new observation conflicts with a deep, hard to vary explanation, one form of criticism is to criticize the theory behind the new observations by conjecturing a theory why those observations might be wrong, then criticizing that theory as well. An example of this is OPERA’s observations of faster than light neutrinos, which conflicted with Einstein’s special relativity (SR). These results didn’t tell us anything, one way or the other, as we had yet to devise a good explanation for the observations, such as we have for microscopes. In the absence of a good explanation, we had no way to criticize these observations. (For example, in the case of microscopes, the samples could have been prepared incorrectly or mislabeled. This is part of the hard to vary explanation as to why microscopes tell us something about reality.) So, observations are neutral (in the sense you’re referring to) without good explanations. As such, they could not falsify SR. Eventually OPERA did come up with an explanation for the observations: an improperly attached fiber optic cable and a clock oscillator ticking to fast. SR lives on to be criticized another day. If one assumes microscopes return accurate results merely because “some abstract designer with no defined limitations wants them to”, we have no way of criticizing the resulting observations, as the explanation for the results could be easily varied. For example, you might put the wrong sample under the lens or replace the lens with a penny, but an abstract designer with no limitations could still display the right sample because “thats what the designer wanted”. Nor is it clear how appending,”because some abstract designer with no defined limitations wanted them to play those roles” to our current, long chain of independently formed, hard to vary explanations as to why microscopes return accurate results, adds to the explanation or is even desirable in regards to actually solving the problem. For example, would you start discarding observations from microscopes if this addition was absent, but the long chain of independently formed, hard to vary explanations remained? Would this stop us from making progress?

critical rationalist

KF, You have yet to respond to the folloiwng...

We seem to agree observations cannot be used to conform theories. However, you do seem think that observations can make a theory more probable. But this assumption is highly parochial, as it doesn’t take into account the different kinds of unknowability. The first kind of unknowability are scenarios where the outcome is completely random and all possible outcomes are known. An example of this is Russian Roulette. As long as you know all of the possible outcomes, we can use probability to make choices about it. For example, if for some horrible reason, one had to choose between different versions of Russian Roulette with specific yet variable number of chambers, bullets and trigger pulls, one could use game theory to determine which variation would be most favorable. On the other hand, any piece of evidence is compatible with many theories (see above) This includes an infinite number of theories that have yet to be proposed. You cannot assign probabilities to un-conceived theories, because those probabilities would be based on the details of a yet to be conceived theory. In addition, scenarios that depend on the creation of knowledge represent a different kind of unknowability, despite being deterministic. For example, people in 1900 didn’t consider nuclear power or the internet unlikely. They didn’t conceive of them at all. As such, it’s unclear how they could have factored their impact into some sort of probability calculation about the future. As such, in the face of this kind of unknowability, probability is invalid as a means of criticizing explanations, despite what our intuition might tell us. Furthermore, inductivism doesn’t tell us what we should observe or why those observations are relevant because all we have are observations at the outset. Until we devise a test, we do not know what observations to make. And without at least one theory, we have no way to devise a test that might result in observations that conflict with that particular theory. If initial observations did tell us what test would actually conflict with a theory, there would be no need to devise a test in the first place. For example, the evidence that collaborated Newton’s laws of motion has been falling on the earth’s surface for billions of years, which is far longer than the entirety of human inhabitance. Yet, we only got around to testing them about 300 years ago after Newton conjectured his theory. As such, it’s not evidence that is scarce, but good explanations for that evidence. And we can say the same about all other phenomena. So, we should look for explanations, not justification. Good explanations solve problems and allow us to make progress. When criticizing theories, we look for observations that can be better explained by one theory, rather than another. And we take into account all of our other current, best explanations for the purpose of criticism. Arguments that do not take them into account are parochial – which is narrow in scope. Most relevant in our discussion here, the objection that “idea X is not justified” is a bad criticism because it applies to all ideas.

critical rationalist

UB: So is the effect - which will not even exist until tomorrow - also the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, or are the necessarily not the same thing? The transformation of matter - which will not occur until tomorrow - does occur then because the knowledge of how to perform that transformation, which is currently in your pocket, will be present there tomorrow - in the genome. Again…

All logically conceivable transformations of matter can be classified in the following three ways: transformations that are prohibited by the laws of physics, spontaneous transformations (such as the formation of stars) or transformations which are possible when the requisite knowledge of how to perform them are present. [...] [So], Every conceivable transformation of matter is either impossible because of the laws of physics or achievable if the right knowledge is present. This dichotomy is entailed in the scientific world view. If there was some transformation of matter that was not possible regardless of how much knowledge was brought to bare, this would be a testable regularity in nature. That is, we would predict whenever that transformation was attempted, it would fail to occur. This itself would be a law of physics, which would be a contradiction.

So, the universe is explicable. At which point, I do not see how this is a problem for Darwinism. To think otherwise only leads to bad explanations.

… if we really do reside in a finite bubble of explicably, which exists in an island in a sea of of inexplicability, the inside of this bubble cannot be explicable either. This is because the inside is supposedly dependent what occurs in this inexplicable realm. Any assumption that the world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than “Zeus rules” there. And, given the dependency above (this realm supposedly effects us), this also means there can be no better expiation that “Zeus rules” inside this bubble as well.

Once you admit the existence of a realm where some inexplicable being can reach into our material bubble via some inexplicable means using some inexplicable method, one could appeal to the idea that any experience merely appears explicable, but is actually not.

In other words, our everyday experience in this bubble would only appear explicable if we carefully refrain from asking specific questions. Note this bares a strong resemblance to a pre-scientific perspective with its distinction between an Earth designed for human beings and a heaven that is beyond human comprehension.

critical rationalist

Mung, I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems to me that Upright Biped can speak for himself. Daniel King

Daniel, The basic objection being put forth is that the argument, as stated, includes terms that onlooker doesn't want to understand. Upright BiPed indicates many others have read and understood, and in fact we have plenty of evidence of that right here in this thread. Onlooker's failure understand is indicative of the fact that she does indeed understand the argument, and just doesn't like where it leads. Which makes your intrusion nothing more than a Red Herring. So frankly your disappointment can't be laid upon Upright BiPed, it's your own fault. This is particularly true in the face of Upright BiPed's own earlier indications that he wasn't going to go off on these wild goose chases. I'm sure not going to blame him if he chooses not to contradict himself now just to satisfy your misguided curiosity. Mung

onlooker:

For me it is, or could be, more of an academic discussion. You’ve presented an argument. I don’t understand some of your terms and claims. I would like to, so I ask questions.

But won't answer any questions yourself. Some discussion.

I am genuinely interested in understanding your argument.

That sure rings hollow. Let me suggest that you begin to act in accordance with your words.

Probably not, but I have no way of knowing what it is you are saying or whether or not I agree unless you make your position more clear. Anyone with confidence in their position would be happy to do so.

Anyone? Then why aren't you willing to clarify your own position? Perhaps if you were willing to discuss your own understanding of the terms involved there could be some progress. But you won't. Which makes you a fraud.

Your paragraphs 3 and 4 above are nothing but word salad until you define some of your terms and rephrase some of your claims. Not even your supporters here have been able to do that for you, so clearly they don’t understand what you’re on about either.

Most of us understand the terms just fine and see no reason to change them. It has nothing to do with some perceived inability on our part to understand. So what's your problem?

I remain interested in reading a good faith response to these questions and in continuing this discussion with a goal of mutual understanding.

You sure don't act like it.

People interested in being understood do not use evasive rhetorical tactics like answering questions with questions.

Actually, they do. That is one of my favored ways to teach and it has a long and distinguished history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maieutics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method I need to do a cut and paste from those articles. Loads of good material. But here's just a taste:

Maieutics is a pedagogical method based on the idea that the truth is latent in the mind of every human being due to innate reason but has to be "given birth" by answering intelligently proposed questions (or problems).

Test: In maieutics, who is doing the asking and who is doing the answering? Is the "giving birth" taking place in the mind of the student or of the teacher? So now what's your next excuse? Mung

Upright Biped, Thank you for your kind reply @410. You said there, in response to my request for examples of "vettings" of your argument by "specialists" :

My comment above (which you referred to) is simply to say that my argument has been read and understood by many. In this instance, it doesn’t even matter if others agree with it, but only that they understood it. (which they did). So to avoid the evidence and hide behind “OMG it’s just too difficult to understand” is pure BS. And it’s in endless supply.

I'm sorry to tell you that I'm disappointed by your response. I thought that "vetting" meant endorsement of the argument and that "specialist" meant a person with special expertise in a field of science. I don't want to distract you, but if you have the time and the interest, I think it might have more impact on the general public if you could indicate what kind of specialists you were citing and what they said. I, for one, would much appreciate clarification by you. As always, Daniel Daniel King

By the way Onlooker, you keep saying that I have not responded to Keith's revamp of my argument. I have already posted a link (249 comments ago) to where I responded immediately after he posted it. The fact is that Keith has never directly responded to my post, yet, you keep right on saying that I have not responded. So, in #431 I asked you to post the link to Keith's specific response to my rejoinder. Are you planning on posting the link, or will this be the last we hear of how I haven't responded to Keith? Upright BiPed

Onlooker at 434, You asked what I meant by the phrase “materially arbitrary.” I provided an example of "materially arbitrary" exactly as I have used the term. This is an entirely legitimate manner in which to communicate ideas. Graphs, visualizations, thought experiments, pictures, charts, etc, etc, are all ubiquitous in the explanation of concepts, and are foundational in the intellectual communication of human beings. You respond thus:

People interested in being understood do not use evasive rhetorical tactics like answering questions with questions.

The crux of the situation then becomes immediately apparent: Is your claim of “evasion” valid? This is a question which can be answered by the evidence. You began by asking about a specific thing. If I then provide an example as a means to communicate that specific thing, but it turns out that the example I provided has nothing whatsoever to do with it, then that example is invalid. It may even be presumed to be an evasion of the topic. On the other hand, if that example clearly illustrates the specific thing you asked about, then that example is not only ‘not an evasion’, but is instead an entirely valid attempt to communicate the specific thing which you asked about. You may now support your claim that my example is “evasive” by stating exactly why the example I provided has nothing whatsoever to do with the specific thing you asked about. Or, you can repeat the claim without justification, in which case you run the risk of being labeled evasive yourself. Or you can change the topic away from your claim, which will then demonstrate that your claim was either unwarranted or (itself) evasive. Or you can answer the question posed by the example and we can move on to address how that demonstrates “materially arbitrary” (i.e. the specific thing you asked about). It’s your choice. Upright BiPed

People interested in being understood do not use evasive rhetorical tactics like answering questions with questions.

And people interested in understanding don't act like belligerent little children who can't even read a dictionary. Yet here you are claiming that you are interested in understanding and acting like a belligerent little child who cannot read a dictionary. And as I said seeing that you do not understand the definition of information communicating with you would be impossible as communication invloves the transfer of information. Joe

toronto:

Here is your problem in a nut-shell.

petrushka: “Other than an omniscient god, what designer has the index to the Library of Babel? The one that stores all the emergent properties of all possible molecules? “

petrushka's strawman is my problem? Toronto- seeing that your position cannot answer anything it is very cowardly of you to expect ID to have all the answers before it can be considered scientific. The FACT that we don't have all the answers proves that the design inference is far from being a dead-end. BTW guys, if God did do it then science has to deal with that as science only cares about reality. Newton saw science as a way of understanding God's Creation. And when it comes to science I will take what Newton said over what evos say. Joe

Upright BiPed,

Okay. You say you do not understand my use of the phrase “materially arbitrary”. I used a legitimate example of “materially arbitrary” in order to convey my use of the phrase. So is the effect - which will not even exist until tomorrow - also the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, or are the necessarily not the same thing?

People interested in being understood do not use evasive rhetorical tactics like answering questions with questions. Here again are the open issues preventing me from understanding your paragraph 3: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? - What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean in that premise? Please demonstrate your interest in actually communicating by directly addressing these straightforwardly presented points. onlooker

- How exactly can information be measured?

By counting the number of bits

- Does information, by your definition, have standard units?

It isn't his definition. He uses the standard and accepted definition. And bits are still the standard units

- Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

Absolutely, but you don't appear to know any of the standard defintions. So it is going to be impossible to communicate any ideas with you.

- What is your precise definition of “arbitrary”?

The same as all the dictionaries. But you coukld try plugging in "not determined by law/ necessity"

- Please restate your premise “If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers.” to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate.

Why is it that only evos on an agenda cannot understand that?

- What does “necessarily arbitrary” mean in that premise?

Why the difficulty with the English language? Do you really think that you are fooling objective onlookers? Joe

Onlooker,

I remain interested in reading a good faith response to these questions and in continuing this discussion with a goal of mutual understanding.

Okay. You say you do not understand my use of the phrase “materially arbitrary”. I used a legitimate example of “materially arbitrary” in order to convey my use of the phrase. So is the effect - which will not even exist until tomorrow - also the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, or are the necessarily not the same thing? Upright BiPed

Onlooker,

Toronto recently provided a nice summary of what you are trying to do here.

Toronto says that the act of handing someone a book “transfers information”. Forgive me for not following what Toronto says.

keiths rephrased your argument in an attempt to understand it and repeatedly asked you to either confirm that he had it right or to correct any misconceptions he may have had. You continuously refused to do so.

I responded directly to Keith immediately after he provided his revamp. He has yet to even mention that response, much less respond to it. You think otherwise? Post the link.

[Elizabeth] accepted your definitions for the sake of argument and then asked how, even with this generous interpretation, your argument supports ID.

She did far more than just accept definitions:

UB: 1) In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?) EL: No UB: 2) If 1 is true, then is it even conceivably possible to transfer that information without a second arrangement of matter (a protocol) to establish the relationship between representation and what it represents? (how could such a relationship be established in any other way?) EL: No UB: If 1 and 2 are true, then is it even conceivably possible to functionally transfer information without the irreducibly complex system of these two arrangements of matter (representations and protocols) in operation? EL: I don’t see why such an arrangement should be “irreducibly complex”.

lol Upright BiPed

PPS: On the detection end, a good example is the diode feeding a cap to detect envelope on half wave rectification. This can even be effected with dissimilar materials contact so we have cases of a long fence with an earphone to GND detecting AM. kairosfocus

PS: Wiki has a reasonable 101 on AM, here. See the way the above is carried out technically. Notice how in plate mod [a very simple case], in effect the Audio is used to vary the amplitude of the power supply, which is physically equivalent to the multiplication of wave forms, per the analysis. Observe how side-bands emerge through sum and difference frequency effects. kairosfocus

kairosfocus,

it seems O/L thinks he can intimidate people into revealing the identity of people who have helped, the better to target them for nasty personal attacks in the fever swamp sites and threatening their jobs.

That's quite an unwarranted leap you made there, dear. I don't care who can provide clarity around Upright BiPed's argument and I don't care what pseudonym they may choose to post under. I just want to understand what he's trying to convey. Perhaps you can help. Here are the current open issues preventing me from getting past his paragraph 3: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? - What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean in that premise? Thanks! onlooker

Genuine onlookers, it seems O/L thinks he can intimidate people into revealing the identity of people who have helped, the better to target them for nasty personal attacks in the fever swamp sites and threatening their jobs. Sorry, we know all about that already. The evident fact is that UB has said stuff that is not particularly hard to understand, and which is in fact a commonplace of comms systems, as I have shown by inserting commentary above, last time at 283. Let's pull it down: __________ >> 1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc). [--> I would add, digital symbols and analogue modulation of wave forms through AM, FM, Phase Mod and pulse mod] 2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter. [--> Comms systems are about the imposition of modulations to represent information; which also happens to be true in the world of life. To go from transmitter to receiver the codes, mod systems, protocols etc have to be given physical instantiation, E.G AM IS BASED ON MATHEMATICS OF MULTIPLYING SINUSOIDS AND CREATION OF SIDE BANDS AS A RESULT, BUT IS EFFECTED USING ELECTRONICS TECHNIQUES IN CIRCUITS. (And I will let the accidental caps lock stand . . . ] 3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. [--> Without the contingency to make one thing stand for something else by analogue or code, we cannot communicate] And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing). 4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law). 5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. [--> We design comms systems, and the protocols or conventions involved are not driven by deterministic physical forces or by chance but by intelligent choice] In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes. [--> For a receiver to work, there must be a transmitter] 6. It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function. [--> Transmitters and receivers are planned together to match under protocols] 7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process [ --> TX and RX] ; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. [--> The impressed design] The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. [--> Yes] They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information. Next time you use a PC on the web using TCP/IP (= “Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP)”), think about it. Same for the Global System for Mobile Telephony (GSM) etc. >> __________ UB has not spoken in the terms that a technical t/comms person would use, but he has highlighted certain features of telecomms systems that are relevant to the question. KF kairosfocus

Joe: Maybe that is the problem. He is a high level software only programmer, so he does not really have a feel for programming in machine-oriented code, close to the metal. That might explain not seeming to see that object code stored as states in physical strings is code. KF kairosfocus

Upright BiPed,

RB took the intellectual lead at TSZ and denied any need to engage the evidence because there was a supposed logical flaw in the argument. It took two months for him to concede otherwise. After his concession he was unfortunately left with the need to engage the evidence. But did he do so? No, he regressed back into the comfort of his supposed logical flaw, and summarily started the whole thing over again.

Anyone is free to read the exchange on The Skeptical Zone and find that this is such a gross mischaracterization of the discussion that it can only be a deliberate falsehood. Toronto recently provided a nice summary of what you are trying to do here.

Then there was Keith. Instead of engaging the evidence, he simply rewrote the argument itself, and attacked that instead. This is a move he continues to this very day.

Another falsehood. keiths rephrased your argument in an attempt to understand it and repeatedly asked you to either confirm that he had it right or to correct any misconceptions he may have had. You continuously refused to do so.

Then there was Elizabeth. Instead of attacking the evidence, she simply conceded all my points and then stood there wondering why any of this could be construed as an argument for design.

No, she accepted your definitions for the sake of argument and then asked how, even with this generous interpretation, your argument supports ID. As with keiths (and myself), you refused to answer and simply ran away from The Skeptical Zone.

My comment above (which you referred to) is simply to say that my argument has been read and understood by many.

This is a step back from your claim that your argument has been "in front of specialists in relevant fields". If there are people who understand your argument and you continue to refuse to clarify it, invite one or more of those people to provide the definitions and explanations required for others to understand it.

As for identifying those who have read my argument, I will refrain for the specific reasons I’ve already stated. People are free to make of that whatever they wish.

What I make of it is that these people don't exist. Prove me wrong. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker, you are just not any good at this.

At getting someone who is clearly frightened of the possible results of clarifying his position to do so? I must agree based on the thread so far that I do indeed suck at that.

Allow me to explain. Anytime you try to flank your opposition (i.e. a move into uncontested territory; a diversion away from the strength of the position in front of you) it is 100% incumbent upon you to get your opposition to take your bait. Otherwise, your maneuver will fail. That is a tactical rule that has been well understood for about 2500 years. Well… I’m not taking your bait.

It appears that we have two very different perspectives on this discussion. I don't see this in the martial terms you use. For me it is, or could be, more of an academic discussion. You've presented an argument. I don't understand some of your terms and claims. I would like to, so I ask questions. Unless you know that you're hiding something behind your impenetrable prose that you don't want me to find, there's no reason to think that I'm attacking you. I am genuinely interested in understanding your argument. I have devoted a considerable amount of my limited free time to participating here in order to do just that. Do I think that I'll agree with it once I understand it? Probably not, but I have no way of knowing what it is you are saying or whether or not I agree unless you make your position more clear. Anyone with confidence in their position would be happy to do so.

You desperately need me to think “wow, my argument is just so hard to understand” that “people might think I’m afraid to clarify it”. If you could just get me to buy off on that, then I would give you your desperately-needed diversion. Your problem is that you are not even the slightest bit convincing.

Your paragraphs 3 and 4 above are nothing but word salad until you define some of your terms and rephrase some of your claims. Not even your supporters here have been able to do that for you, so clearly they don't understand what you're on about either.

We can set aside the fact that my argument has already been vetted by specialists elsewhere;

"Specialists" who you have yet to identify. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

and we can set aside the fact that Barry wouldn’t have posted it here if it was incomprehensible;

You don't want to play that card. Barry also allows kairosfocus to post. Joking aside, if Barry understands what you're saying, you should ask him to provide the definitions and restatements required to communicate your meaning.

or that others on this forum (some of them biologists, technologists, engineers, programmers, and doctors) seem to read it correctly.

None of whom have demonstrated any ability to define your terms or clarify your claims.

By the way, you coming on this board and taking the 63 words of my #1 and #2 in the OP, and spending 260 words explicitly illuminating just how masterfully you could trim them down to just 23 words in a coherent statement that suits you, is not much of a demonstration of how incomprehensible the argument is. In fact, that was a rank amateur’s mistake, performed with great fanfare.

As I noted earlier, managing to extract some meaning from your first two paragraphs, with grudging help from your good self, says nothing about the clarity of the remainder of your text. To refresh your memory, here is exactly where I find your argument impossible to follow:

D3. Arbitrary: ? This word seems important to your argument, so a precise definition is required. Does it simply mean "separate"? What does the qualifier "materially" add to "arbitrary"? P2. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. This is where my understanding starts to break down. There are too many concepts packed into this sentence for me to parse it. By "representation of form" do you mean "information" (I am guessing at that based on D1 and D2)? What does "consequence of its own material arrangement" mean? What does "necessarily arbitrary to" mean (this may be answered when D3 is more detailed)?

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

I'm too lost at step 3 to get anything out of step 4, but what do you mean by "material component" as opposed to "arbitrary component"? What do you mean by "reducible to physical law"? I think you've got several more definitions and premises residing in steps 3 and 4. It would be most helpful to extricate them and make them explicit.

I remain interested in reading a good faith response to these questions and in continuing this discussion with a goal of mutual understanding. onlooker

Does he recognise embedded ROM when he sees it, and does he recognsie a read-off and edited control tape used to run a NC machine? kairosfocus

Kairosfocus- I think toronto knows about RAM and ROM as he claims to be a programmer. He wants to know the interface and the code used to program cells, not a computer. However it is because of the current paradigm that we do not know how to do so. Joe

Yet ‘naturalistic’ evolution is the accepted paradigm throughout academia – even of the sainted Genetic Code.

And it is very noticeable that no one in academia can produce positive evidence taht supports it. Nor can they tell us how to test it.

No-one in biology is bothered by the presence of translated protein in the protein translation system. Is that because they are ideologues, or because they are capable of recognising that plausible mechanisms can readily account for it?

Stubborn ideologues

aaRSs, in particular, appear to be much younger than proteins of their type. If they were fundamental, they would be expected to be among the oldest proteins.

But blind and undirected chemical process cannot produce aaRs.

But the real issue is evolvability, and I don’t think you have done anything to support your case that it isn’t evolvable, by virtue of arbitrariness, ‘semiosis’, proven irreducible complexity or anything else.

Actually the real issue is the total lack of positive evidnce that it could evolve via blind and undirected processes. Joe

Does Toronto understand the difference between ROM -- including occasionally reprogrammable ROM -- and RAM? kairosfocus

tonto proves to be totally clueless:

Here’s a cell. Download some “arbitrary semiotic codes” into it.

We, humans, don't have the ability to do that yet. But that doesn't mean anything. Heck there are tribes of people that couldn't figure out how to build a computer but that doesn't mean computers are not designed.

Do you understand what all the readers are expecting?

Yes they are expecting you to put up or shut up. But the safe money is that you will never do either. Joe

UB (& Joe et al): We have now come full circle to why the objectors are unwilling to even accept a basic understanding of what information is, how it is expressed in material systems and how it functions in such systems, in especially communicative and cybernetic contexts. It would cost their deeply locked in views too much. So, they cannot afford to concede the obvious, even if it costs them the price of clinging to the patently absurd. Where the reality of information and associated functionally specific complex organisation -- FSCO/I -- points ever so plainly to its well-known cause. Yes, points. For, we are here dealing with inference to the best empirically grounded causal explanation of a sign. The logic is not that hard to follow, in the end; IF we are but willing to be led by the evidence and reasoning:

a: We live in a technological world, in an info age, where the commonest measure of info, the bit, is a day to day familiar term. One we can look up in any dictionary, or basic book on communications theory. We know the equation, ever since Shannon & Hartley: I_i = - log_2 [Pi], in bits. b: Info systems, per Shanon et al, follow a well known pattern by which sources communicate with systems by encoding, modulating, transmitting, storing, transferring, receiving, demodulating, decoding and applying information. c: Systems routinely use such info to do things, ranging from control systems to PIN-controlled bank account access systems. d: In all of these, no observed exceptions, there is an intelligently directed organisation of material components to fulfill the requisite tasks, as we see from yesterday's announcement of the iPHONE Gen-5 model, with Apple at nearly US$ 640 bill mkt cap and poised to zoom yet further. e: In short, we understand all of this, sufficiently so that Apple has moved nearly 300 billions in value over the course of a bit over a year since Mr Jobs' passing. because hard and software products that embed FSCO/I are highly valuable properties. f: So, we know the sign, FSCO/I, and what it points to, cause involving IDOW, i.e. design. Where we have whole schools in our universities that teach budding engineers and computer scientists the skills, knowledge and techniques of design. (Apparently, we are being expected to shut our eyes to these massively evident facts.) g: Q: Why is this? A: because cell based life -- shock and awe -- is BASED on similar info technology, using molecular nanotech. We see storage and transfer of coded info, we see step by step algorithmic processing and informationally controlled assembly of components, we see despatch systems with addressing, we see walking trucks and highways, we see codes, thus LANGUAGE, and algorithms thus purpose and planning. And more, a veritable world of ultimate info tech, well beyond our own achievements to date, but recognisably related. h: The reasonable man or woman would ask: what is the observed cause of such FSCO/I, and is it analytically plausible that other ways can get there? i: The answers are plain: design, and per the needle in the haystack/ monkeys at keyboards type analyses, we see that it is not plausible for blind necessity and/or blind chance to create a sufficiently complex instance of such, where 500 bits of informational complexity in something that is functionally specific is a good threshold on the gamut of our solar system, and 1,000 bits for the observed cosmos. j: But, such is not acceptable, to the committed a priori Lewontin materialist, for that has in it unwelcome worldview level import, especially when we go up to the next level, the origins of a cosmos that is evidently fine tuned and organised form the basic physics of the cosmos for such cell based life. k: But, fighting on worldviews turf surrenders the rhetorical advantage of claiming "science" as your authority. So, artificial and patently specious objections are endlessly manufactured. To the point of increasingly evident absurdity.

The latest one seems to be, circling all the way back to restart the process:

You cannot “determine X” without testing whether X is possible . . . . But you . . . have accepted design without testing whether it is possible.

The neat trick here is to duck addressing the relevant X. What is the known -- massively observed -- and only credible source of FSCO/I again?

(And if you now want to suggest that FSCO/I is ill-defined, kindly explain to me what he ASCII code that is expressed in the glyphs on your computer screen as you read this is, apart from functionally specific complex organisation of components and associated information. By direct comparison, just what is it that is being expressed in the observed string data structures in D/RNA, using the genetic code to step by step assemble the proteins, the workhorse molecules of cell based life that fold to functionally specific and complex form based on that coded sequence?)

So, if we see something that has in it the SIGN, of FSCO/I, what are we warranted to infer as best causal explanation? As in, "like causes like"? As in, the same way we infer to the composition of stars we will never be able to directly insect or make for ourselves based on the signs they exhibit and what we know about the cause of such signs? Plainly, you cannot have it both ways. Either inference on sign is a reasonable approach in BOTH astrophysics and explaining the origin of FSCO/I, or it is not credible for either. And, it is obvious that the whole edifice of origins sciences is built on the claimed reconstruction of the past on traces we see in the present and studies on what causes could give rise to those same signs. Where in many cases, the strength of association between traces and cause-sign investigations is much, much weaker. (As in, even isochrons are not nearly as reliable as are advertised, and as in there is little or no actual observational, empirical support for the idea that minor adaptations can be reasonably extrapolated into body plan level changes.) In short, we see double standards in warrant all over the place. Weaker or non-existent evidence based on gross extrapolation is acceptable if it fits the evo mat narrative, but not even the strongest degree of support is acceptable if it does not. That is neither scientific nor rational, it is ideological captivity of science, education and civilisation that we are seeing. It is time to wake up and leave the cave of evo mat shadow shows confused for genuine realities! KF kairosfocus

But you Joe, have accepted design without testing whether it is possible.

Nope, design is the only way living organisms are possible. Design is the only known process known to create semiotic systems. Design is the only way to get software into or onto hardware. BTW tonto, how do we know Stonehenge was possible? I gave you the answer already... Joe

In studying any complex adaptive system, we follow what happens to the information. - Murray Gell-Mann

Mung

Please explain, line by line, how you came up with your “summary” of Upright Biped’s argument.

And please define summary. Otherwise we won't really be able to know for sure if what you have given truly qualifies as a summary. :rollseyes: Mung

UPB:

Then there was Elizabeth. Instead of attacking the evidence, she simply conceded all my points and then stood there wondering why any of this could be construed as an argument for design.

MUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I wonder if she still thinks 100 pennies 'contain' 100 bits of "Shannon information." Wasn't she the one who proposed that she could demonstrate that 'the semiotic system' could arise with mere random variation and selection? The same one who later had to retract that claim? The same one who we were being so kind to by even allowing her to try to use 'a darwinian process' to bring about the very system needed for the very existence of a darwinian process? The same one accused on numerous occasions of intellectual dishonesty? And after is said and done, doesn't know why it supports ID? Oh my. The NERVE. The AUDACITY. The CHUTZPAH. (In more traditional usage, chutzpah is invariably negative.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpah The INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY! Do we really need to go back and review all her past attempts to argue against "the semiotic hypothesis" on the basis that it supports ID? And now she claoims to not know how or why it could be taken to support ID? OH! EM! GEE! For this I might even be tempted to open an account over at TSZ. Well, onlooker, just look at the competition you have. Mung

Are you saying we can “determine Darwinism” without testing whether “Darwinism” is possible?

That is exactly what you have done, toronto-> you have determined darwinism without testing whether it is even possible. However that is not science, but you don't seem to know anything about science, either. Joe

To keiths- Please explain, line by line, how you came up with your "summary" of Upright Biped's argument. IOW clarify yourself as we don't understand your point. Use your "summary" line for line against this thread's OP. That way we can understand your problem and possibly help you with it. That is if you are really interested in reaching an understanding... :razz: Joe

That has nothing to do with ID. As I said we can determine designed or not without having to know how. And speaking of pure BS-

You cannot “determine X” without testing whether X is possible.

So archaeologists rebuilt Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Puma Punku, etc using the peoples and technology of the times in which they were built? But I digress, we know, because we have direct observation of, that agencies can do things with nature that nature itself cannot do. THAT is the whole point of the design inference- we have direct observational evidence of agencies producing semiotic systems, producing CSI, producing counterflow and leaving behind signs of work. IOW the design infernece is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism- meaning it has been and is being tested every day. But then again you guys don't seem to understand how science works because you hold to your position despite the total lack of supporting evidence because you do have a handful of promissory notes... Joe

Hello Daniel, I should have been more explicit. Here is a snapshot: The ID critics have been given the argument. Their response has been to do anything whatsoever except engage the evidence. RB took the intellectual lead at TSZ and denied any need to engage the evidence because there was a supposed logical flaw in the argument. It took two months for him to concede otherwise. After his concession he was unfortunately left with the need to engage the evidence. But did he do so? No, he regressed back into the comfort of his supposed logical flaw, and summarily started the whole thing over again. Then there was Keith. Instead of engaging the evidence, he simply rewrote the argument itself, and attacked that instead. This is a move he continues to this very day. Then there was Elizabeth. Instead of attacking the evidence, she simply conceded all my points and then stood there wondering why any of this could be construed as an argument for design. The list goes on and on. Now the argument is “it just too incomprehensible to understand”. Of course, a forthcoming attack on the evidence is sincerely promised, even threatened, but only after those difficult words like “arbitrary” are understood. Give me a break. :| My comment above (which you referred to) is simply to say that my argument has been read and understood by many. In this instance, it doesn’t even matter if others agree with it, but only that they understood it. (which they did). So to avoid the evidence and hide behind “OMG it’s just too difficult to understand” is pure BS. And it’s in endless supply. As for identifying those who have read my argument, I will refrain for the specific reasons I’ve already stated. People are free to make of that whatever they wish. That has been the standard thus far. Upright BiPed

>"That has nothing to do with ID. As I said we can determine designed or not without having to know how. And YOUR position can’t tell us the “how” of anything so obvioulsy it isn’t a requirement"< How true this is, how many times do we here the repetitive drum beat of, "Evolution has nothing to do with Abiogenesis" wateron1

You definitely did NOT show us any ID courage when you refused to take a stab at providing evidence for the downloading of the first “arbitrary semiotic codes” and the “onlookers” have noted that.

That has nothing to do with ID. As I said we can determine designed or not without having to know how. And YOUR position can't tell us the "how" of anything so obvioulsy it isn't a requirement

They see us asking you for mechanisms and your side providing none.

They see I have provided several- 1- "built-in responses to environmental cues" 2- targeted search 3- designed to evolve/ evolved by design 4- front-loaded evolution But then again you don't seem to understand what a mechanism is.... And Allan, seeing that you don't have any evidence to support your position, what would you debate if you could post here? Joe

Is that really how you want to be perceived?

How we are perceived by a bunch of equivocating intellectual cowards is of no consequence. Upright Biped is sooooo ashamed of his argument that he posted it on how many forums? At least one of "theirs" and one of ours. And all he gets for that is total argument in minutia and semantic quibbling. Obviously you don't care how you are perceived... Joe

UB wrote:

We can set aside the fact that my argument has already been vetted by specialists elsewhere...

Would you kindly provide links to those vettings? That should shut up the doubters. Or, at least give them something to chew on... Respectfully, Daniel Daniel King

By the way, you coming on this board and taking the 63 words of my #1 and #2 in the OP, and spending 260 words explicitly illuminating just how masterfully you could trim them down to just 23 words in a coherent statement that suits you, is not much of a demonstration of how incomprehensible the argument is.

LOL! Mung

onlooker:

keiths is giving you the courtesy of actually paying attention to what you are saying and attempting to understand it.

And his pretense is no doubt just as sincere as your own. Why won't you answer the questions, onlooker? Mung

Onlooker, you are just not any good at this. Allow me to explain. Anytime you try to flank your opposition (i.e. a move into uncontested territory; a diversion away from the strength of the position in front of you) it is 100% incumbent upon you to get your opposition to take your bait. Otherwise, your maneuver will fail. That is a tactical rule that has been well understood for about 2500 years. Well… I’m not taking your bait. You desperately need me to think “wow, my argument is just so hard to understand” that “people might think I’m afraid to clarify it”. If you could just get me to buy off on that, then I would give you your desperately-needed diversion. Your problem is that you are not even the slightest bit convincing. We can set aside the fact that my argument has already been vetted by specialists elsewhere; and we can set aside the fact that Barry wouldn’t have posted it here if it was incomprehensible; or that others on this forum (some of them biologists, technologists, engineers, programmers, and doctors) seem to read it correctly. However, the one thing we cannot set aside is that I have been watching you shoot yourself in the foot from the beginning, or that I own a dictionary. - - - - - - - - - By the way, you coming on this board and taking the 63 words of my #1 and #2 in the OP, and spending 260 words explicitly illuminating just how masterfully you could trim them down to just 23 words in a coherent statement that suits you, is not much of a demonstration of how incomprehensible the argument is. In fact, that was a rank amateur’s mistake, performed with great fanfare. But don’t sweat it. It was obvious you wanted to show how smart you are. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Keith is literally in a full blown tantrum, rocking back and forth in his seat and kicking his feet.

That interpretation of the comment I quoted from TSZ is no more accurate than your claims about Reciprocating Bill. keiths is giving you the courtesy of actually paying attention to what you are saying and attempting to understand it. Your choice to cast baseless aspersions in lieu of providing answers says far more about your character than his.

They sure as hell are not going to engage in a public argument over the meaning of words like "arbitrary" and "information".

I'm not trying to debate your definitions, merely to get enough clarity about them so that I can understand what you are trying to convey with your argument. I note for the record that you have still failed to answer any of the direct questions posed to you nor have you chosen any of the other three options presented by keiths. The only conclusion that can be drawn at this point is that previously quoted from The Skeptical Zone:

You, on the other hand, seem ashamed of your argument and afraid of what might happen if you stated it clearly and explicitly. Instead of clarifying, you obfuscate. Instead of answering questions straightforwardly, you evade them. You complain that others are misrepresenting your position, but when they ask you for correction, you refuse to give it. Then you declare victory, saying that no one has defeated your argument! For you, the entire exercise seems to be more about saving face than it is about communicating your ideas. In fact, you appear to be deliberately avoiding communication precisely in order to save face. Why should anyone take your argument seriously if you are so ashamed of it? Why are you afraid to communicate it in a way that your audience will actually understand?

You are behaving exactly as one would expect you to if you lacked confidence in your ability to defend your argument and were more concerned with not being proven wrong than with finding out the truth. Is that really how you want to be perceived? onlooker

keiths:

You claim to have a “Semiotic Theory of ID” that applies to the protein synthesis system.

It does.

Your argument must therefore lead to the conclusion that the protein synthesis system is designed.

It does as it fits the criteria. You lost, get over it already... Joe

People who want their arguments to be understood define their terms clearly and answer questions to resolve confusion.

The terms are clearly understood by anyone who A) knows how to use a dictionary (or the English language) and B) isn't on an anti-ID agenda. You and the TSZ regulars appear to be both A and B. But that is because you guys are the big C, as in Cowards. Congratulations... Joe

Why is it that only the anti-IDists who have tardgasms every time the word "information" is mentioned? How is it that these people use the intertubes, buy food, drive a car, use a phone- all of which require information- but don't even understand what it is they are doing, ie using information? Joe

wateron1

Question for Upright and others, why is none of this or any other research guided by ID principles, presented at mainstream science conferences?

That’s an excellent question. Speaking only for the argument above, I began trying to work through this issue starting in Sept 2009, and have never seen the argument articulated above until I wrote it out myself. However, the material basis of each point in the argument obviously appears in any number of peer-reviewed papers (none of it is even controversial). Since I am a Research Director in Network media, I do not produce peer-reviewed science articles. That is why this particular argument has not appeared in any journals, and subsequently is why it has not appeared as part of a conference either. However, to address your larger question, the answer is rather simple – mainstream peer-review journals and conference submissions are biased against data which could logically support an ID paradigm. This is not even a question, and the clues are scattered around for anyone to see. Take for instance the people who are most likely to gravitate towards the argument above – biosemioticians . Read a biosemiotician's paper on origins and they leave no doubt whatsoever: life began with the onset of semiotic content. It is the organizing reality that life requires in order to separate itself from inanimate objects. (Thomas Sebeok; “life and semioisis are coextensive”, Jesper Hoffmeyer “the basic unit of life is the sign, not the molecule”, Marcello Barbieri “semiosis not only is a fact of life but is ‘the’ fact that allowed life to emerge from inanimate matter”, Howard Pattee “life is matter controlled by symbols”, etc, etc). Yet, look at the paper by Marcello Barbieri (“A Short History of Biosemiotics”) where he writes of the “new unification” of differing schools of semiotic thought stemming from their annual conference in 2004. He states that there are two postulates that forged this unification. The first postulate is that ‘semiosis appeared at the origin of life’, differentiating it from pansemiotics and physiosemiotics (which promoted semiotics in inanimate matter). And the second postulate was simply that biosemiotics will have nothing to do with ID. And if you read the literature, there is massive justification for postulate #1 and nothing whatsoever for postulate #2. It pure ideology and power control. His specific words are: “The second postulate is the idea that signs, meanings and codes are natural entities. This sharply divides biosemiotics from the doctrine of ‘intelligent design’, and from all other doctrines that maintain that the origin of life on Earth was necessarily the product of a supernatural agency.” Anyone truly familiar with ID will immediately notice that this postulate lumps ID in with “other doctrines”, yet ID proper does not share any commitment to “supernatural entities”. That is not within its scope. Period. Yet, the deal is done nonetheless. It’s as if the academy will allow these biosemioticians to go ahead and think about symbols systems and such, and they can even have their separate conferences and their own separate journals – just as long as they keep it to themselves, and swear to God they won’t lend their support to ID. And so, the fix is in. Everybody is happy, and the truth is trampled upon. So on one side ID has the materialist ideologues who will go to no end to bias all discussion, and on the other side are the biosemioticians who are only too happy to watch their step if it means they are given a modicum of legitimacy - even if only among themselves. In the end, we have three groups: one has the science wrong and assumes its conclusion, the other has the science right but assumes its conclusion, and the third has the science right and is internally prohibited from any conclusions beyond the science itself. - - - - - - - - - - By the way, you can see the practical benefits (of maintaining this enforced separation) in the comments coming from TSZ. Keith is literally in a full blown tantrum, rocking back and forth in his seat and kicking his feet. He and Onlooker act as if I myself invented biosemiosis, which is an incoherent argument with absolutely no basis in material fact. It simply cannot be allowed. You’ll also notice how the frontline scientists and researchers I have approached (i.e. Moran, Matzke, etc) have refused to get into a debate with me about it. It’s a no winner for them, and they have something to protect. They sure as hell are not going to engage in a public argument over the meaning of words like “arbitrary” and “information”. That’s beneath them. They will leave that to the internet’s bottom feeders like Patrick and Keith, who are unencumbered by the thought of appearing completely irrational. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed (et al.), I just checked out The Skeptical Zone and see that keiths has posted an assortment of ways to make progress in this discussion. Since you seem disinclined to answer my questions, perhaps some of these alternatives will be of greater interest:

Upright, You’ve now been offered four distinct ways to correct your communication failures and get your argument across to your audience: 1. Look at my summary of your argument in the OP. If it’s accurate, tell us. If not, amend it while maintaining its concise and explicit format. 2. Answer onlooker’s questions, so onlooker can do the work for you and recast your argument in the same concise and explicit format that I used in the OP. 3. Get one of the “specialists” to do the work for you. You wrote: This argument has already been in front of specialists in relevant fields and not a single one of them asked me what I meant by anything I said. When I say that, I am not saying that I didn’t have to re-explain much, or not very much – I am saying I didn’t have to change a single word in order to be understood. It only took me a few minutes to come up with my summary. A “specialist” who understands your argument well should be able to do even better. 4. Get anyone else in the world to do the work for you (as long as they have better writing skills than you). According to you, onlooker is only pretending not to understand what you’re trying to say. If your accusation is true, there must be lots of people who do understand your argument. Pick one — any one, as long as he or she has better writing skills than you — and ask him or her to summarize your argument, using the concise and explicit format of the OP. A reminder: You claim to have a “Semiotic Theory of ID” that applies to the protein synthesis system. Your argument must therefore lead to the conclusion that the protein synthesis system is designed. If it doesn’t lead to that conclusion, then your argument fails to support the “Semiotic Theory of ID.” You’ve been whining about having to answer onlooker’s questions. Okay, if you don’t like answering onlooker’s questions, then pick one of the other three options above. Everyone is watching — and waiting. Will you deliver, or will you fail again?

I look forward to your response. onlooker

Mung,

Upright BiPed:

A measured content of information is of no consequence here, only the material conditions of the transfer.

Sorry onlooker, I don’t believe I can make it any more clear than that.

I responded to that statement of Upright BiPed's by asking why, if measurement is of no consequence, he uses the word "measured" in his definition. Nothing in his statement clarifies what he actually means by the word "information". People who want their arguments to be understood define their terms clearly and answer questions to resolve confusion. Those who don't, don't. onlooker

CR: I need to add to Mung, this, on the strawman fallacy (which, strictly speaking is a species of red herring -- a willfully introduced and sustained distractive irrelevancy . . . ), from the IEP fallacy page:

Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying. Example (a debate before the city council):

Opponent: Because of the killing and suffering of Indians that followed Columbus’s discovery of America, the City of Berkeley should declare that Columbus Day will no longer be observed in our city. Speaker: This is ridiculous, fellow members of the city council. It’s not true that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians. I say we should continue to observe Columbus Day, and vote down this resolution that will make the City of Berkeley the laughing stock of the nation.

The speaker has twisted what his opponent said; the opponent never said, nor even indirectly suggested, that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians. The critical thinker will respond to the fallacy by saying, “Let’s get back to the original issue of whether we have a good reason to discontinue observing Columbus Day.”

On points: 1 --> Now, CR, you have had ample opportunity to know that the issue of the relevance of induction to the design theory question is being considered in a context where Toronto suggested that inductive reasoning by inference to best current explanation is question-begging or arguing in a circle. 2 --> You further know or should know that it was pointed out to him that first, inductive arguments are now understood as arguments where evidence supports but does not demonstrate the claim being made, such that inference to best current explanation -- contrary to a claim made earlier -- is an inductive argument. 3 --> Where also, the competition across possible explanations and the choosing of a superior one across factual adequacy [including predictive power regarding new facts], coherence and explanatory simplicity as opposed to both simplisticness and ad hoc-ery, are material considerations as to whether a given argument is "best." IF, any given explanation is best. (That, too was explicitly pointed out as a "we may have to live with it" possibility.) 4 --> So, the false charge of question-begging falls to the ground, per this comparative process. 5 --> Similarly, you know or should know that the degree of warrant discussed is provisional, i.e. following Newton et al, it is understood that such reasoning is not ultimately demonstrative beyond possible correction. Thus, best CURRENT explanation. 6 --> Which superiority of warrant, moreover, is not assessed in any metric probability space, the issue is that we have that which is well warranted per the comparative process, and is empirically reliable; also, potentially actually true. (This is where scientific theories differ from models, which can be even ludicrously false so long as they deliver useful results in a zone of tested applicability, as the "Transistor man" model of the BJT in say Horowitz and Hill shows. So soon as a theory shows itself false, it is a model and/or empirically unreliable in that zone of falsity.) 7 --> In addition, per Avi Sion's apt summary, it has been highlighted that we live in a world that is known to exhibit strong patterns of predictable regularity [e.g the rising of the sun, the falling of objects under gravity, the breatheability of air, the friction we rely on to walk or drive, etc etc etc . . . ], regularities that can be summed up in models, hypothesised principles, empirical laws, and explanatory theories. 8 --> Thus, as he writes and as you have been repeatedly given but have ignored even as you pursue a tangential discussion across several threads:

We might . . . ask – can there be a world without any ‘uniformities’? A world of universal difference, with no two things the same in any respect whatever is unthinkable. Why? Because to so characterize the world would itself be an appeal to uniformity. A uniformly non-uniform world is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, we must admit some uniformity to exist in the world. The world need not be uniform throughout, for the principle of uniformity to apply. It suffices that some uniformity occurs. Given this degree of uniformity, however small, we logically can and must talk about generalization and particularization. There happens to be some ‘uniformities’; therefore, we have to take them into consideration in our construction of knowledge. The principle of uniformity is thus not a wacky notion, as Hume seems to imply . . . . The uniformity principle is not a generalization of generalization; it is not a statement guilty of circularity, as some critics contend. So what is it? Simply this: when we come upon some uniformity in our experience or thought, we may readily assume that uniformity to continue onward until and unless we find some evidence or reason that sets a limit to it. Why? Because in such case the assumption of uniformity already has a basis, whereas the contrary assumption of difference has not or not yet been found to have any. The generalization has some justification; whereas the particularization has none at all, it is an arbitrary assertion. It cannot be argued that we may equally assume the contrary assumption (i.e. the proposed particularization) on the basis that in past events of induction other contrary assumptions have turned out to be true (i.e. for which experiences or reasons have indeed been adduced) – for the simple reason that such a generalization from diverse past inductions is formally excluded by the fact that we know of many cases [[of inferred generalisations; try: "we can make mistakes in inductive generalisation . . . "] that have not been found worthy of particularization to date . . . . If we follow such sober inductive logic, devoid of irrational acts, we can be confident to have the best available conclusions in the present context of knowledge. We generalize when the facts allow it, and particularize when the facts necessitate it. We do not particularize out of context, or generalize against the evidence or when this would give rise to contradictions . . .[[Logical and Spiritual Reflections, BK I Hume's Problems with Induction, Ch 2 The principle of induction.]

9 --> So, the reasonable man will reckon with both our finitude and fallibility on the one hand, and the evident presence of reliable uniformities -- including in many cases where randomness itself follows regular patterns [e.g. Gaussian, Binomial and Weibull distributions etc] -- on the other. Hence the Newtonian premise that we accept general claims that have stood the test, subject not to unsupported contrary speculations but to correction in light of further evidence of observation and/or contradiction to known certainties, i.e. discovery of incoherence where the other claim is known true and/or of incoherence within the framework, it being accepted that A AND NOT_A is an absurdity and necessarily false. 10 --> In this context, well-grounded scientific knowledge claims are seen as fallible but well warranted per inference to best current explanation. That is, we have here a weak form knowledge claim, with provisionality but with confidence in empirical reliability and potential -- and in some cases morally certain -- truthfulness. (This last, meaning that one would be irresponsible to resume the balance of evidence and reliability as misleading such that one may freely assume the falsity and ignore the claim in decisions of significant import, e.g. a court case or a case of potential tort through negligence of duties of care.) 11 --> Now, the above may be many things, but it is not a naive inductivism or justificationism. You have set up and knocked over a strawman repeatedly, despite correction and even protest. Beyond a certain point, that sort of behaviour is not merely error but deceit. You are unfortunately, quite close to that threshold of willfully or insistently deceptive neglect of duties of care to accuracy and fairness. Continuing misrepresentation is a form of deceit. 12 --> Now, further, I have pointed out that in discussing actual scientific progress, Popper, whose flag you fly, has been forced to suggest a concept of corroboration. Where, well tested theories are seen as "corroborated." 13 --> This -- so far as I have gathered over the years since I first saw it -- is not seen as meaning "probably true" and assignable to some specific numerical or nominal and rankable degree of probability on some scale, but in effect as tested and found empirically reliable thus reasonable to take seriously until and unless later defeated by further evidence and/or logical argument. 14 --> So far as this has some merit, it is speaking of a kind and degree of warrant. Where I beg to differ is this: since we do live in a world full of highly reliable and in some cases morally certain inductively supported regularities and truths, there are also many cases where is IS possible to assign a position of degree of warrant on a nominal but ranked scale, or a numerical scale. 15 --> For instance, it is morally certain that we are mortal, and that the sun will rise on the morrow, that dropped heavy objects near earth fall at an initial acceleration of 9.8 N/kg, and that if such an object is a fair die, the probability of any of its six faces coming up when it settles, is 1/6. 16 --> Similarly, it may be seriously argued that it is well warranted that mechanical necessity, chance and/or intelligently directed choice and organising work are causal factors that we may see in action, much as when we look at the screen of an old fashioned analogue cathode ray oscilloscope we "see" an electron beam in action writing a trace across the screen. (In such a case it is silly pedantry to insist that we have never seen an electron and must treat it as an unsupported or dubious hypothesis. Tell that to the engineers who designed my personal favourite, trusty good old Tektronix 465 'scope. I contend -- on much support -- that much the same holds for the pretence that necessity, chance and choice are dubious when presented as causal factors.) 17 --> It is in that context that I have argued that in a lot of scientific work, we deal with things that we do not or even cannot directly observe. Electrons count. Stars count. The remote past of origins counts. 18 --> For centuries, scientists have investigated such things on traces coming from what we do not see, which are consistent with inferred best explanation causes and reliably observable characteristic effects we can more directly observe. 19 --> So, we for instance routinely infer the composition, surface temperatures and structure as well as likely life cycle position of remote stars from various analyses of apparent brightness, peak spectral wavelength, Fraunhoffer lines, etc. [Cf. here on for my discussion at 101 level.] 20 --> Likewise, we routinely accept inference to best explanation in light of characteristic signs, not only in looking at a deer track (cf. UD discussion here) but also in looking at signs of necessity in action [low contingency natural regularities in certain aspects of a system's behaviour -- a pendulum's swinging], chance based process [stochastically distributed contigencies -- Gaussian errors in observations] , and choice [e.g. functionally specific, complex organisation and/or information -- e.g. the text of this post]. 21 --> For telling instance, when we have a communication system and see a received apparent signal of some complexity that bears evident information, we routinely and reliably infer to intelligent message not mere lucky noise. Indeed, we actually use the diverse "signatures" of signals and noise to establish the key quality metric: signal to noise [power] ratio. 22 --> This is the context in which information is a relevant concept and observable-measurable phenomenon, manifest in how material objects and/or wave-based signals are modulated to carry intelligent messages, which may be in analogue waves or coded representations. 23 --> As UB has emphasised in the OP and in subsequent exchanges, such information is expressed using material representations, which manipulate forces and materials of nature intelligently. The screen on which you are most likely reading this post is a case in point, as are the various bits and pieces of electronics that back it up. 24 --> It is reasonable to infer from such FSCO/I, that intelligence was involved and that these entities manifest information, which is observable and measurable to the point where the bit is now a common unit and term in our culture. As Mung just reminded me, Nats and Hartleys didn't make it as these are less convenient, never mind that in the world of logarithms and math, base e logs are natural and base 10 Briggsian logs are -- actually, were -- overwhelmingly common. I guess the most common place to see base 10 logs in action these days is in decibel charts and log-log or log-linear plots. (Logs used to be so important that Gen Rommel memorised the log tables and used this to do all sorts of powerful analyses in his head. I don't know if this was required in the old Imperial German Army's cadet academies. I only happened on the case in a history book.) 25 --> So, we are now back on track: FSCO/I is a well warranted sign of intelligent action as a material causal factor. Indeed, it is a sign of intelligence. 26 --> So, the problem and challenge for those who object, is to actually show good evidence that FSCO/I can reasonably and routinely be produced by blind mechanical necessity and/or chance processes. 27 --> Plainly, the concept is not incoherent and equally plainly this test has not been met -- that is why we see so many weird and wonderful tangential debate tactics and talking points being used by objectors to design theory. 28 --> That itself speaks volumes. KF kairosfocus

Question for Upright and others, why is none of this or any other research guided by ID principles, presented at mainstream science conferences? wateron1

Red Herring Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase. Description of Red Herring A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: Topic A is under discussion. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). Topic A is abandoned. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. The Red Herring Yes indeed, what do we do with the red herring? Topic B is introduced (How exactly can information be measured?) under the guise of being relevant to topic A (I need to understand everything that can possibly be known about information in order to grasp your argument) when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A. That's right. Irrelevant. Topic A in this case is whether information can be transmitted in a material system (a material universe) without a material representation (without using a representation instantiated in matter). Information was transmitted for thousands of years before Claude Shannon ever came along and defined a measure. http://www.amazon.com/dp/1400096235 Mung

From the OP:

1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system

I see the letter 'A' appear on my computer screen. That's the effect. Letter 'A' appears on screen. Some arrangement of matter presumably brought about that effect. The arrangement of matter which brought about that effect we call a representation. Good so far? Could some other arrangement of matter within the system have brought about that same effect?

2. It is not logically possible to transfer information in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

I press the key on my keyboard that is displaying the 'A' symbol. An 'a' appears on my computer screen. That constitutes a transfer of information. It is not logically possible that the representation which evoked the effect of the 'a' on my screen as a result of the pressing of the 'A' key on my keyboard is immaterial. I honestly don't see the difficulty people claim to have with this argument. Are they of a mind that immaterial entities can bring about physical effects in a material system without bringing about an arrangement of matter? onlooker:

But how exactly can information be measured?

Relevance, please. Are you claiming that if we cannot measure the amount of information transmitted that we cannot know that any information was transmitted at all? You assert that if you press the letter 'A' on your keyboard and the letter 'a' appears on your screen that this either does not involve a transfer of information or that you cannot be sure that it does? onlooker:

- Does information, by your definition, have standard units?

Relevance, please. Where did Upright BiPed define "information"? onlooker:

Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

I guess that answers my previous question. Do you have any reason whatsoever to believe that Upright BiPed means, by his use of the term information, anything other than what is commonly understood by the term and available from any standard dictionary? Mung

Haven't heard of Nats and Hartleys in a LOONG time! kairosfocus

So petrushka and toronto prove that they do not understand the English language nor science, and Allan Miller chimes in with his special pleading- "The OoL and the first living organisms didn't need no steenking proteins to make proteins- the RNA world, blah, blah, blibbidy-blibbidy,blah" Well Allan blind and undirected chemical processes have yet to be demonstrated to provide a RNA world AND the RNA world has never been demonstrated to give rise to something else- oh and the RNA world hasn't even been demonstrated to exist. So if imagination were evidence, you would have a point... Joe

Bits, Nats, and Hartleys Mung

F/N: before I head off, let me remind all of the clip from Newton in Opticks Query 31 (1704), where the inductive approach to scientific method was laid out long before this exchange and which has been sitting in the IOSE appendix on methods all along. I think I have even clipped it before: _____________ >> As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [speculative] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations. [[Emphases added.] >> _____________ The strawmannisation of inductive thought in science, should be plain to anyone looking on with an open mind. Plainly, Newton held that inductive methods yielded potentially true conclusions but not conclusions demonstrated beyond correction. And Locke, writing at roughly the same time, was quite similar, making the comment that we have no excuse to protest that we have not bright sunlight, if we have candle light, echoing BTW, Prov 20:27. This, too I have cited. And I have noted how ever since Godel, even deductive systems are left less than beyond all doubt. Also, that in science we not only have theory refinement but theory replacement. When it comes to Popper the critical issue remains the need to account for why stick with corroborated theories, which is in my opinion tantamount to the same basic concept of inference to best current empirically tested and reasonably reliable explanation. So -- sadly -- there is no responsiveness on CR's part, to the evidence and actual argument put forward ever since Newton et al, only the putting up and knocking over of a strawman caricature. And also, it looks like all of this grand exercise on methods and the credibility of inductive reasoning -- yes that is what is being challenged -- is a distraction. For in the end we are back at best current provisional and empirically reliable explanation. Bottomline, there is by implication of evasion no real solid objection on the merits to informed design inference based thinking so the objections have majored on distractions and abstruse speculations on whether or not inductive reasoning is reasonable. KF kairosfocus

UB: Which of the material observations is false? CR: Which assumes it’s possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. So place the observations into the explanatory framework of your choice and answer the question. Mung

UB: Which of the material observations is false? Which assumes it's possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. This is yet another false assumption of inductivism… From a comment contrasting Critical Rationalism and Inductivism on another thread..

Inductivism - We start out with observations - We then use those observations to devise a theory - We then test those observations with additional observations to confirm the theory or make it more probable However, theories do not follow from evidence. At all. Scientific theories explain the seen using the seen. And the unseen doesn’t “resemble” the seen any more than falling apples and orbiting planets resemble the curvature of space-time. Are dinosaurs merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils? Or are they *the* explanation for fossils? After all, there are an infinite number of rival interpretations that accept the same empirical observations, yet suggest that dinosaurs never existed millions of years ago. For example, there is the rival interpretation that fossils only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore, fossils are no older than human beings. As such, they are not evidence of dinosaurs, but evidence of acts of those particular observations. Another interpretation would be that dinosaurs are such weird animals that conventional logic simply doesn’t apply to them. One could suggests It’s meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils – which is an example of instrumentalism. Not to mention the rival interpretation that an abstract designer with no limitations chose to create the world we observe 30 days ago. Therefore, dinosaurs couldn’t be the explanation for fossils because they didn’t exist at the time. Yet, we do not say that dinosaurs are merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils, they *are* the explanation for fossils. And this explanation is primarily about dinosaurs, not fossils. So, it’s in this sense that science isn’t primarily about “things you can see”. (I’d also note that the above “rival interpretations” represent general-purpose ways of denying anything, but I’ll save that for another comment.)

This is why I keep pointing out the flaws in Inductivism. Justificationism is simply impossible. But, by all means, feel free to present a "principle of induction" that actually works in practice. All I've seen so far is claims that "everyone knows induction works" or "everyone uses it, so it must be true", along with common misconceptions, which doesn't refute Popper's criticism. Show me how you can justify whatever it is you use to justify something, etc. Furthermore, it's apparent that many here are not actually familiar with Popper's criticism or hold significant misconceptions. For example, KF wrote…

CR objects to the basic definition that knowledge is well warranted, credibly true belief. He sees such as a naive justificationism that especially on matters of experience leads to knowledge claims based on induction which in his view is never justified. This is a spin off Popper. He is apparently unable to accept that from Newton and Locke et al on, we have a clear understanding of scientific knowledge as provisional, and warranted on induction where by evidence provides reasonable and often substantial support but not ultimate and unquestionable proof. Hence some of my remarks just above. KF

Yet this is clearly at odd with Popper's Critical Rationalism. Nor does "we have a clear understanding of scientific knowledge as provisional, and warranted on induction" refute Popper's criticism.

Critical rationalism rejects the classical position that knowledge is justified true belief; it instead holds the exact opposite: That, in general, knowledge is unjustified untrue unbelief. It is unjustified because of the non-existence of good reasons. It is untrue, because it usually contains errors that sometimes remain unnoticed for hundreds of years. And it is not belief either, because scientific knowledge, or the knowledge needed to build a plane, is contained in no single person's mind. It is only available as the content of books.

Which brings me back to my original criticism. The argument is parochial in that it ignores other forms of epistemology and assumes all theories should be reductive in nature. You might not "like" or "believe" in the alternatives, but that is irrelevant to my criticism. Again, it's as if you simply cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. Rather, you uncritically assume it is true. critical rationalist

And another round of ignorance:

Yes, with a “specification” of the “functionality” required *before* I started designing, unlike ID, which assigns “specific functionality” after the “design” is in operation.

We do it just as archaeologists and forensics do it. Ya see toronto, we could not have known the specs beforehand because we were NOT the designer. WE can only look at the design and attempt to deduce the spec. And obvioulsy your position has nothing because you are reduced to spewing your ignorance- well that is all you do anyway... Joe

How the Game is Played. Read an OP. Pretend to not understand the terms. Ask for definitions of the terms. Ask for clarifications of the definitions. Dispute at every turn. Assert you're just seeking clarity. Amend the terms and ask if the amended term is what the author really meant to say all along. When asked to supply your own definitions of the terms, claim your own definitions and understanding of the terms are irrelevant. Why is it so important to avoid stating your own understanding of the terms? 1. People would be able to see that your understanding is no different than the way the term is being used, exposing the real intent of your pretended lack of understanding. 2. The author of the OP would be able to amend your terms to bring clarity (which is the last thing you really want). 3. You know you're just playing a game, and don't want the game to be turned against you. There's no one watching this thread that doesn't see exactly what is going on. Perhaps onlooker is a sock puppet. But he also may jst be the most recent graduate from The School of Intellectual Dishonesty. Mung

oops: A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result- Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan. A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result. Therefor design is a mechanism. It is a very simple and basic thing to understand. As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people. All of that is in the dictionaries toronto... Joe

toronto chokes:

Design is not a mechanism any more than the term art defines a mechanism.

But a dicttionary toronto, your ignorance is not a refutation. Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan. A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result. Therefor design is a mechanism. It is a very simple and basic thing to understand. As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people. Joe

onlooker:

If you’d like to take a shot at making it more clear, and Upright BiPed agrees with your formulation, that would be most helpful.

Upright BiPed:

A measured content of information is of no consequence here, only the material conditions of the transfer.

Sorry onlooker, I don't believe I can make it any more clear than that. And your response has been simply to tell Upright BiPed that he's wrong because it's of consequence to you and you're the one asking the question. Red Herring Mung

And repeated yet again: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-433018 Like a broken record. Don't want to enter into a discussion? Just repeat your demands again. Well, two can play that game. But rather than go the copy and paste route I'll just post a link. Let us know when you have answered these questions Onlooker. A Test of Sincerity So far, you've failed the test. Mung

Joe: Has Toronto ever designed something? Built to a design? Debugged and got it to work? Has he paid attention tot he progress of genetic modification/engineering technologies with Venter and co as illustrative of one way to do it? Or, is he just whining. Let's see, IDOW:

INTELLIGENTLY -- as in intelligence that we know all about. DIRECTED: -- according to purpose, plan and co-ordination to a goal ORGANISING -- as in hooking up in accordance with the wiring diagram WORK -- as in what happens when a force moves its point of application along its line of action, here being in accordance with a plan and wiring diagram.

Sure sounds like a method/mechanism to me. Do I need to call names like TRIZ again? KF kairosfocus

Peter, That is how I felt in discussion with Mike Elzinga. If he would have just set aside his ideological war long enough to address the material issues. Not going to happen. Upright BiPed

KF: I see O/L is playing the EL, MG etc trick — pretending that that which has been cogently answered any number of times is unanswered and presumably unanswerable. bet your bottom dollar that that is how it will be played in the fever swamps for years to come. I have reached a stage, sadly, where I am no longer able to read posts by CR and O/L as they have not moved the discussion any further forward, like I hoped they would. There has been very little of any real value from either of them, and I don't think we can expect anything of any real substance possibly forthcoming. To say I'm dissapointed would be putting it mildly. I had hoped for much better. PeterJ

kairosfocus: “The mechanism of design is IDOW: intelligently directed organising work, that imparts the functionally specific or otherwise desired configuration. “

toronto: What KF has provided is nothing more than an acronym, not a mechanism.

Buy a dictionary toronto, design is a mechanism- that is according to the standard and accepted definitions of the words "mechanism" and "design". And AGAIN toronto, reality says that we don't have to know how BEFORE determining design. Your position can't say how beyond vague claims of accumulating mutations. And finally (again) your position's mechanisms have been analyzed and cannot do what is required. Joe

Joe: The mechanism of design is IDOW: intelligently directed organising work, that imparts the functionally specific or otherwise desired configuration. We see it going on all around us, so it is only the willfully blind who will not acknowledge its reality. And when it comes to the applicability of IDOW to cell-scale technologies, just note what Venter et al have already done. "There is none so blind as he who WILL not see!" "If the light in you is darkness, how great is your darkness!" KF kairosfocus

Folks: I see O/L is playing the EL, MG etc trick -- pretending that that which has been cogently answered any number of times is unanswered and presumably unanswerable. bet your bottom dollar that that is how it will be played in the fever swamps for years to come. Just scroll up folks, to see how many times he has been answered on what info is and how it can be measured in the relevant senses, but refuses to respond responsibly. And when he takes up something new it is only to project another hyperskeptical challenge this time to cast doubts on what it means to measure. Measurements are used to assign values on scales, O/L et al -- ratio scales, interval scales, ordinal scales and nominal ones, per comparison with standard values for such scales. It turns out that digital entities use nominal scales based on thresholds, with the bit being 1/0, T/F. N/S On/Off, Hi/Lo etc. We usually do a contrast with analogue or continuous scales -- between any two values there is a valid state. The 4-state genome code is G/C/A/T (or for RNA, U). My favourite contrast is the ladder vs the rope. Between rungs there is no valid state, but you can hang on to a rope at any point. That is how I used to teach my intro Digital Electronics classes. I will bet that this will not be good enough. NOTHING will ever be good enough because this is not the root problem. This is the distraction form the a priori, self-refuting materialism that is driving the agenda, and which is also -- as Plato warned 2350 years ago -- feeding the ruthless amoral materialist factionism we see coming from the fever swamps. (And, it is highly likely that O/L is a sock-puppet for one of these. Joe and I have some suspicions.) That, on my considered opinion, is a clear mark of someone here only to derail focus, polarise and deflect attention, not to seriously dialogue. But such and their misbehaviour can be exposed for reasonable people to see through what is going on. KF kairosfocus

Here is my specific usage of the word "entailment" to which Bill objected for two months (before conceded its proper use). You would like to claim it is incorrect? Please point out the incorrect use:

So here we have a series of observations regarding the physicality of recorded information which repeat themselves throughout every form – no matter whether that information is bound to humans, or human intelligence, or other living things, or non-living machines. There is a list of physical entailments of recorded information that can therefore be generalized and compiled without regard to the source of the information. In other words, the list is only about the physical entailments of the information, not its source. I am using the word “entailment” in the standard sense – to impose as a necessary result (Merriam-Webster). These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer. And they are observable.

Upright BiPed

Mung, Upright BiPed's definition of information is this: D2. Information: a) the form of a thing b) a measured aspect c) a measured quality d) a measured preference He has yet to explain why he uses the word "measured" if measurement is not important. He has also yet to clarify this definition, which is both imprecise and not apparently related to more widely used definitions of the word. If you'd like to take a shot at making it more clear, and Upright BiPed agrees with your formulation, that would be most helpful. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

And since it’s subject to the material evidence, why don’t you take a shot at it Onlooker? Which of the material observations is false?

I'll be happy to address the issue of any material observations once we've gotten to that point in your argument. At the moment, as I'm sure you'll recall, we're stuck on your paragraph 3 until you man up and address the open issues. They are: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? - What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean in that premise? I look forward to making some progress in understanding your argument. Unfortunately, based on your previous patterns of behavior I predict that you will continue to refuse to answer directly, throw up numerous transparent distractions, and ultimately run away from the discussion while claiming victory. Please prove me wrong. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

So when Bill finally conceded my point, he also positioned his concession as non-consequencial. How surprising, right?

Your use of the word "conceded" is disingenuous. What actually happened was that you used the word "entailments" incorrectly, were called on it by Reciprocating Bill, and later used it correctly. Reciprocating Bill acknowledged that correct usage. You are mistaking a pat on the head for some kind of victory. Reciprocating Bill has addressed your distortions further at TSZ. Anyone still interested can get the facts for themselves there. I'm done discussing it in this thread since you are using it as yet another distraction from your failure to clarify your semiotic argument. onlooker

Now Toronto is still asking for a mechanism, which is strange because I have already provided that. And it is clear, via scientific testing, that their mechanism is NOT up to the task of creating semiotic states. Natural selection doesn't do anything- we know that from many years of observation and testing. And get this, if we don't know how the designer loaded the first cells with the software required then we don't have anything. Yet archaeologists can determine something is an artifact BEFORE knowing the mechanism used to make it. Toronto does not understand science. So Toronto, ID has a mechanism that has been tested and PROVEN to be able to construct semiotic systems. YOUR position's mechanisms have also been tested and found wanting. Those are the facts. You can continue to ignore them because you love your ignorance but just remember ignorance is not a refutation. Joe

Mung, You seem to be leaving off my own contribution that elaborated just what is going on with not only bits but the wider info comms system. O/L is in the position of the monkey who so unwisely climbed higher and higher and higher, to crow its triumphs. Splang, zoot, thunk [arrow hits home], THUD [poor monkey falls], arrow-pierced monkey-meat for lunch (at least that's my reading of a common Caribbean proverb: de higher monkey climb, de more 'im expose 'imself . . . as in, lunch). O/L has for some time been simply about recycling already adequately answered objections to be disruptive here and to allow those elsewhere to continue to drum out the intoxicating claims of fallacious and poisonous talking points without having to look at whether they are well grounded in light of evidence. Drumming it out and chanting hypnotically do not turn fallacy into soundness. As in, info has standard units, and FSCO/I can be measured in ways that build on such. Bits that do a particular job in a particular context are after all quite familiar. And it is a fact, on much experience and one backed up by analysis, that blind chance and necessity cannot credibly account for FSCO/I, but IDOW* -- design -- does routinely in our observation. And so forth. KF *PS: Intelligently directed organising work, such as O/L carries out when he punches keys on computer keyboards in correct sequence to compose and post messages of objection here at UD. kairosfocus

onlooker:

My first question is for clarification of this definition. How exactly can information be measured? Does it have standard units? Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432406 Answered: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432420 Asked again: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432731 Answered again: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432740 Asked yet again: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432765 And again: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432927 Answered yet again: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-432931 Yeah, we see what you're all about. Cut paste repeat. Your claim to want to move the debate forward has been exposed as a lie. You have no such interest. If you did, you would reflect upon what is involved in the transfer of the thoughts in your head into a form that can be transmitted over the internet just to appear on some web site where others can read it and respond. I bet you'd find that once you started banging on your keyboard BITS and BYTES and ASCII start to rear their ugly heads and that key on your keyboard with an I on it somehow when you pushed it ended up producing an effect of a character appearing on your computer screen that looked oddly similar. Now pull that key off your keyboard and swap it for another key and then press it again. Now what appears on your screen? Mung

Reciprocating Bill adds:

So we ask UB: What happens to semiotic theory, and the unspoken (but lurking) implications thereof, when it is shown that a number of phenomena that he asserts demonstrate the “entailments” of the TRI, and hence a semiotic state, in fact arose by natural, unguided means?

Start demonstrating- if you could have you would have. So what are you waiting for? I have my pencil, notepad and magnifying glass ready- anytime you are ready... Joe

Upright Biped defeated by bald assertion:

For example, he includes in his list of phenomena demonstrating the “the transfer of recorded information” and hence “a semiotic state” items such as pheromones, sensory input, animal signaling, etc. for which we already have strong justification for asserting evolutionary origins by Darwinian means.- reciprocating bill

Of course by "strong" he means he is really convinced it was via darwinian means. Really, really convinced and you would be too if you didn't require steenkin' evidence. Joe

F/N: It is illuminating to compare the issue actually raised -- the implications of the challenge of corroboration in a world where any number of hyps may not have been falsified -- to the tangential issue CR chose to highlight. On the tangent, I simply suggest there is abundant evidence that we live in a world that is full of reliable patterns, so inductive reasoning albeit provisional, is a good strategy of reasoning. Avi Sion has aptly summed up:

We might . . . ask – can there be a world without any ‘uniformities’? A world of universal difference, with no two things the same in any respect whatever is unthinkable. Why? Because to so characterize the world would itself be an appeal to uniformity. A uniformly non-uniform world is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, we must admit some uniformity to exist in the world. The world need not be uniform throughout, for the principle of uniformity to apply. It suffices that some uniformity occurs. Given this degree of uniformity, however small, we logically can and must talk about generalization and particularization. There happens to be some ‘uniformities’; therefore, we have to take them into consideration in our construction of knowledge. The principle of uniformity is thus not a wacky notion, as Hume seems to imply . . . . The uniformity principle is not a generalization of generalization; it is not a statement guilty of circularity, as some critics contend. So what is it? Simply this: when we come upon some uniformity in our experience or thought, we may readily assume that uniformity to continue onward until and unless we find some evidence or reason that sets a limit to it. Why? Because in such case the assumption of uniformity already has a basis, whereas the contrary assumption of difference has not or not yet been found to have any. The generalization has some justification; whereas the particularization has none at all, it is an arbitrary assertion. It cannot be argued that we may equally assume the contrary assumption (i.e. the proposed particularization) on the basis that in past events of induction other contrary assumptions have turned out to be true (i.e. for which experiences or reasons have indeed been adduced) – for the simple reason that such a generalization from diverse past inductions is formally excluded by the fact that we know of many cases [[of inferred generalisations; try: "we can make mistakes in inductive generalisation . . . "] that have not been found worthy of particularization to date . . . . If we follow such sober inductive logic, devoid of irrational acts, we can be confident to have the best available conclusions in the present context of knowledge. We generalize when the facts allow it, and particularize when the facts necessitate it. We do not particularize out of context, or generalize against the evidence or when this would give rise to contradictions . . .[[Logical and Spiritual Reflections, BK I Hume's Problems with Induction, Ch 2 The principle of induction.]

So, induction is not the species of utter irrationality that has been suggested. There is even a principle of provisional reasonable warrant. The previously linked is interesting on the corroboration challenge:

Inductive: Truth of premises supports (but does not guarantee) truth of conclusion. (The relation of support is called confirmation.) . . . . Science appears to need inductive inferences. Theories go beyond the observed evidence; they do not follow from the observed evidence by any deductive rule . . . . Popper’s solution: deductivism. There is no justification for scientific theories. There is only falsification, and deductive logic is good enough for that . . . . Salmon agrees: philosophers have not solved the problem of induction. But he rejects deductivism. Basic problem: too many unfalsified hypotheses to choose from! Deductivism rules out falsified hypotheses, but gives us no reason to prefer a corroborated hypothesis over a completely untested hypothesis. Crucial thesis (p. 436): There is (or ought to be) a rational basis for preferring one unrefuted generalization to another for use in a predictive argument . . . . Third Popperian response (p. 442): The best-corroborated theory is accepted because we have “nothing nearer to the truth”. Now reliance on corroborated hypotheses rests on assumption that they are ‘likely’ to track genuine regularities. But that looks like accepting induction! 6. Final remarks. a) Salmon suggests that induction is needed even for rational prediction (and hypothesis-preference) in a theoretical setting. b) If Salmon is right – both that rational prediction needs induction, and that no justification for induction yet offered succeeds – should we embrace inductive scepticism, the view that rational prediction is not possible?

Now, the reasonable man's answer is the obvious one. We live in a world where the sun reliably rises on mornings, and where even chance processes follow lawful patterns. So, it is reasonable to expect to be able to read such patterns from the course of general experience, at least sufficiently to make generally reliable predictions that can guide decision-making. These are error prone but in many cases have high reliability and indeed no prospect of being overturned. So, we have every reason to cautiously trust well tested patterns to be reliable, especially in regions of performance that are well tested. The best present explanation is a reasonable model for the future, and a lot better than no model. If a new one comes along that is sufficiently superior, a switch can always be made. And given the value of truthfulness, it is worth insisting that scientific models should be potentially truth-bearing. That way, at a minimum they cannot be known false, or known impossible. (A model that works can be even defiantly or ludicrously false as long as it is reliable, the models used in many systems of electronic circuit design being a capital case in point. My favourite being "transistor man" who watches the input current and adjusts the output circuit to follow a rule, e.g. Ic = beta*Ib. Talk about Angels pushing!) The founding scientists could with equanimity accept that hey were finite, fallible and often mistaken, but had a confidence in the intelligibility of nature reflected in one of their favourite terms: laws of nature. This reflected their confidence in the Architect and Builder of the cosmos whose thoughts they sought to think after him. (And BTW, that there is a usual course of nature under such an Architect, is equally untroubled by the thought that for good reason that Architect may occasionally act beyond the usual course of the world. The over-wrought panic of today's materialists at the imagined chaos that a world in which miracles could happen, is inadvertently revealing of a deep epistemic insecurity. That insecurity is also reflected in many of the over-wrought concerns we can see concerning inductive reasoning.) I find that behind much of the huffing and puffing today, is a loss of confidence consequential on the rise of inherently irrational and self-refuting evolutionary materialism. KF kairosfocus

CR: I see: Salman is a justificationist, yet he has not formulated a principle of induction that actually works, in practice. In fact, no basis of warrant, including mathematics post Godel, delivers absolute certainty. What we live with is defeat-able reason and reason-able faith inextricably intertwined in the roots of all worldviews. As to induction, from Newton and Locke forward, we see a pattern of reasonable and provisional warrant not claims of absolute certainty. Where, however, some conclusions are strong enough to be morally certain. KF kairosfocus

Something is wrong today, 504 coins. kairosfocus

UB I see a couple of typos, 505 coins and 100 - 1,000 kbits in the basic genome. KF kairosfocus

I'm paying 10 to 1 that Onlooker returns with more justification/obfuscation instead of demonstrating a falsity in the material observations. Who's in? :) Upright BiPed

KF, thank you for your post at 334. Upright BiPed

And since it's subject to the material evidence, why don't you take a shot at it Onlooker? Which of the material observations is false? Upright BiPed

Onlooker, So when Bill finally conceded my point, he also positioned his concession as non-consequencial. How surprising, right? He added:

Not a very useful entailment, however, as you must already know that a phenomenon has both necessary and sufficient conditions, and what they are, before reaching your conclusion that those conditions obtained.

And you think that by leaving this out of the concession, I have left out tremendous context, right? But it is you who has left out the context. Bill argued for two months (over my repeated objections) that he needn't even address the content of the argument because of a perceived logical flaw which he eventually forced to conceded away. Then upon concession, he pleads 'its subject to evidence'. Well, no duh. That is exactly the way it was presented both before and after his concession. The argument is subject to evidence - which is exactly what he was unwilling to address. How about THAT context Skippy? Do you think no one noticed?

Reciprocating Bill: April 18th My remark above underscores a fatal logical non-sequitur in your reasoning and doesn’t turn on “counter examples.” Reciprocating Bill: May 8th I assert (not suggest) that you do not understand entailment, and due to your failure to grasp entailment you have constructed an argument beset with a fatal logical flaw … As for evidence for my position: recall that my position is that your argument is fatally logically flawed. BiPed: May 14th I challenged him [Bill] long ago to provide rationale that demonstrated the physical consequences of recorded information could not confirm a semiotic state, and he provided nothing. And if it is possible that they confirm semiosis, then the statement could be true or false; making the matter subject to evidence. …and after his concession: BiPed: July 17 Those relationships render the argument subject to evidence, which is exactly the way it was presented and argued for. You have steadfastly presented it as “fatally flawed”, yet once again, you were eventually forced to reject your own argument. (“Of course if the necessary and sufficient conditions of a phenomenon are present, then [the] phenomenon is present”). The only plausible reason to repeat an argument after you’ve rejected it, is because the alternative (i.e. dealing with the evidence) is even less satisfying, and acknowledging the validity of the argument is out of the question.

You can keep bringing it Onlooker. But, you will lose every time. Upright BiPed

Joe Second pause. The entire context of my discussion has been inference to best explanation as an inductive inference on empirically reliable sign. Where the empirical investigation of possible causes, within our observation, is able to identify characteristic results of known causes, and so we may identify signs. This has been cogently discussed over and over again, just irresponsibly brushed aside. As for how the original information and functional organisation were placed into the first living cells, the best answer is that there is more than one way to skin a cat-fish. We have a sign of intelligent cause as opposed to chance contingency, but that leaves open specific mechanism. It suffices that we already see some possible methods on what Venter et al are doing. That is taken up in onward questions in the list. In short, a credibly sufficient cause would be a sufficiently advanced molecular nanotech lab. Indeed we will probably have such labs within the next several generations. (My interest, though is at a higher scale, a self-replicating industrial system suitable for transforming 3rd world communities and for space colonisation. (As in solar system.) NASA has already done studies towards such. A bit grandiose and expensive, but the Rep Rap and kin are already pointing to some possibilities on a more useful scale. KF kairosfocus

Upright BiPed,

BiPed: In the end (after 120+ days) the objector finally conceded that my usage had been valid all along. Onlooker: This is factually incorrect.

As for your insinuation that RB did not concede my point:

BIPED on June 10: Bill, if a specific thing only exist under specific conditions, then does its existence entail the existence of those specific conditions? Reciprocating Bill on June 11: Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment” … I take your point.

I notice that you are careful not to link to the actual exchange, making it that much more difficult for any readers to view it in context and draw their own conclusions. Reciprocating Bill addressed your equivocation himself shortly after you made it. Flint also called you on it:

I looked at the context, and what Bill said was basically, “that would be a valid use IF AND ONLY IF you could demonstrate that your causes are both necessary and sufficient — that is, that no other set of causes can produce your entailments”. And you simply ignored that requirement, you continue to act as though Bill didn’t say it, you purposely omit it when quote-mining him, and you simply continue to pretend he conceded something he did not concede. This is dishonest. Do you think nobody notices?

So, do you think nobody notices? onlooker

Joe: Toronto seems to forget that he featured as a poster child of irresponsible commentary for his comment at TSZ here (if it is still there):

Kairosfocus [Cf. original Post, here]: “You are refusing to address the foundational issue of how we can reasonably infer about the past we cannot observe, by working back from what causes the sort of signs that we can observe. “ [Toronto:] Here’s KF with his own version of “A concludes B” THEREFORE “B concludes A”.

That is a clear accusation that inference to best current explanation on empirical evidence is circular reasoning. I don't have a lot of time just now, I will clip my comments in rebuttal in the OP already linked:

Let’s take it from the top, bearing in mind the parallel case we already looked at: 1 –> In science (and in other fields of significance) we are often interested in getting an accurate understanding of what may have happened in the unobserved or unobservable past, or in places and objects that we cannot directly inspect. 2 –> In such cases, we are led by the logic of inference to best explanation. The Information Philosopher cites Gilbert Harman:

The inference to the best explanation” corresponds approximately to what others have called “abduction,” the method of hypothesis,” “hypothetic inference,” “the method of elimination,” “eliminative induction,” and “theoretical inference.” I prefer my own terminology because I believe that it avoids most of the misleading suggestions of the alternative terminologies. In making this inference one infers, from the fact that a certain hypothesis would explain the evidence, to the truth of that hypothesis. In general, there will be several hypotheses which might explain the evidence, so one must be able to reject all such alternative hypotheses before one is warranted in making the inference. Thus one infers, from the premise that a given hypothesis would provide a “better” explanation for the evidence than would any other hypothesis, to the conclusion that the given hypothesis is true.

3 –> In short, we consider the alternatives that are possible and try to eliminate down to the remaining one. Of course, in science we cannot eliminate all possible hypotheses, so we infer provisionally [--> Notice this quiet correction] on a best current explanation basis. 4 –> Where, we accept that if a pattern of plausible initial and intervening conditions and known laws and statistical patterns could reasonably produce an effect this is reasonably the best explanation. Such as the way we explain the HR diagram of the stellar clusters with their branches from the main sequence heading to the giants bands above. [--> Cf the linked] 5 –> Likewise, when we see the characteristic sign of a deer track, we normally infer to deer as best explanation. 6 –> Now, there is indeed a point where fallacious circularity could enter the picture. 7 –> Ironically, it is a problem that design theorists and others have repeatedly pointed out to a priori materialists of the Lewontinian stripe: if there is a known possible causal factor that could explain an effect more readily than one’s preferred materialist scheme, then it is improper to play gerrymandering games with the rules and methods of science to lock it out of consideration. 8 –> In the case of design theory, we do have a vast empirical base that shows that routinely functionally specific and complex organisation and information are produced by designers, using processes of intelligently and purposefully directed configuration and contingency. 9 –> Not only so, but such is the ONLY observed cause of such FSCO/I. In short there is good reason to infer that this is an empirically reliable sign of design. Thence, to infer from it that things which show this feature may be best explained as designed. 10 –> What does Toronto do to lock this out? He tries to twist about the question-begging, by ignoring the nature of empirically anchored, provisional inference to best current explanation, and caricaturing the argument then falsely accusing those who properly use such an abductive process of fallacious question-begging. _____________ That’s rich. And so, Toronto joins our list of poster children for the errors of a priori evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers.

It seems Toronto is trying to back away from this blunder, by pretending it did not exist. Telling. KF kairosfocus

CR

The meaning of “arbitrary” is contextual in that it refers to “A” and “1000001”, which are abstractions. However, it’s unclear what you mean by “arbitrary” in the context of “representations” of “causes” found it [01].

Representations are not abstractions? I have stated on this thread:

A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc). … and The first object is a representation; an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent). … and Firstly, the representation (by necessity) is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes within the system. This is evidenced by the simple fact that the matter the representation is instantiated in, is not the effect it represents to the system. Secondly, the physical protocol must establish the material relationship between the representation and its effect, but it must do so while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation. In other words, neither the representation nor the protocol ever becomes the effect.” … and [regarding the word "arbitrary"] It’s not really the word I rely upon; it the material observation which has been made. Proteins aren’t constructed from nucleotides. There is no inherent physical property in the pattern of cytosine-thymine-adenine which maps to leucine. That mapping is context specific, not an inexorable law. This has been shown in the lab. … and even And if they are not the same thing, then the relationship between them is necessarily arbitrary from a physical perspective (regardless of how that relationship originated). If you do not like that word, you can use whatever word you like. I have seen such described as “immaterial”, or “non-material”, or “physico-dynamically inert”, etc, etc. You can also use the word Dr Liddle suggested – “materially dissociated”. It matters not, to me.

What more do you need? Upright BiPed

BiPed: In the end (after 120+ days) the objector finally conceded that my usage had been valid all along. Onlooker: This is factually incorrect.

As for your insinuation that RB did not concede my point:

BIPED on June 10: Bill, if a specific thing only exist under specific conditions, then does its existence entail the existence of those specific conditions? Reciprocating Bill on June 11: Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment” … I take your point.

Upright BiPed

OK Kairosfocus, Toronto tried to answer you:

kairosfocus: “>> 1: Is argument by inference to best current explanation a form of the fallacy of question-begging (as was recently asserted by design objector “Toronto”)? If you think so, why? “

Why would you claim that I assert that “inference to best current explanation” is a “form of fallacy”?

Most likely because of your posts.

If you’re best suspect is the butler, you now have to prove it.

No, you just have to find supporting evidence.

It is not a “form of fallacy” to believe that the butler did it, but a good cop would then try to prove his case with evidence.

The problem is that your position doesn't have any supporting evidence.

If you agree that proof is required before conviction, why is proof not required for ID?

Science is not about "proof". And your position cannot be proven.

Why does an “inference to ID” not require evidence?

Inferences are based on evidence, duh.

If I’m wrong show me that the “butler of ID” had motive and means.

Show us that Stonehenge builders had motive and means- you can't. The best science can do is say there must have been a motive and means because there is Stonehenge.

Now since I’ve answered a KF question, maybe he’ll have the courage to answer one of mine. How do you download the “semiotic codes” into the first cell?

If we knew that then we wouldn't need science. But prove me wrong by demonstrating how the "semiotic code" arose via blind and undirected processes. Joe

Onlooker: What happened is that you were equivocating, using at least two meanings for the word “entailment”. Reciprocating Bill makes this very clear in this comment

Thank you Onlooker. I probably couldn’t have found a better example of Definition Derby. After Reciprocating Bill/Diffaxial/Voice Coil was forced to concede both his points of contention, he was understandably looking to save some face. And THIS ridiculous position is the one that worked for him. What does he say?

UB, your “entailments” cannot both be a “necessary result” of and “the required material conditions” for the transfer of recorded information.

Really? There are "required material conditions” for the transfer of recorded information, which are sufficient to confirm that such a transfer took place. If such a transfer did in fact take place, then these material conditions will be found as a “necessary result” of that transfer. Like I said, it’s a pathetic manner in which to have to justify yourself – to insulate your beliefs from any evidence to the contrary. Upright BiPed

@KF#337 KF: F/N For those puzzled by the debate over verification, falsification, corroboration and induction, this little introductory note on Popper’s challenges with corroboration should suffice to show that tested empirical support for a claim is still important and provides a degree of warrant for accepting (provisionally of course) those which have a good track record of testing and prediction. See here and here. To summarize, Salman is a justificationist, yet he has not formulated a principle of induction that actually works, in practice. Popper presents a straight forward logical argument as to why justification is impossible, which Salman did not refute. The same of criticism addressed here in this very thread where Salman exhibits the second of three attitudes. IOW, these criticisms reflect confusion about Popper's attitude. And they stem from the fact that, as justificationists, they simply cannot see it any other way. As such, they assume justification must be true. And there are plenty more misrepresentations of Popper. A few of which can be found here. Again, to reiterate...

Specifically, the fundamental flaw in creationism (and its variants) is the same fundamental flaw in pre-enlightenment, authoritative conceptions of human knowledge: its account of how the knowledge in adaptations could be created is either missing, supernatural or illogical. In some cases, it’s the very same theory, in that specific types of knowledge, such as cosmology or moral knowledge, was dictated to early humans by supernatural beings. In other cases, parochial aspects of society, such as the rule of monarchs in governments or the existence of God, are protected by taboos or taken so uncritically for granted that they are not recognized as ideas.

Inductivism is suffers from the same fundamental flaw. critical rationalist

And of course there are dialects in the DNA code [e.g. Mitochondrial DNA], which immediately tells us that it is conventional and not a matter of necessity. kairosfocus

F/N: Arbitrary is often used in science and technology to mean in effect conventional, not predetermined by mechanical necessity, i.e. to be determined on chance or by choice or by convention. So, for instance, there is nothing that determines that 455 kHZ and 11.7 MHz should be intermediate frequencies used in radio systems, but it is a convenient choice that has become an industry standard. Similarly the ASCII codes for the various glyphs used as alphanumeric characters in English text is arbitrary as say the existence of alternaticve schemes such as EBCDIC shows. Similarly we see conventional differences between English and American spellings of words and even choices of words for objects. In Jamaica it is a gully, here it is a Ghaut. In the US is it the hood, in the UK it is the bonnet of a car. In the UK, Japan and the Caribbean we drive on the left of the road, in the US, and a lot of other places -- including Belize BTW, on the right. And so forth. The attempts to endlessly debate the common usage of "arbitrary" as UB has in sci-tech contexts, reflects willful ignorance or worse, as there are sci tech people even on the objector side who MUST be familiar with the usage. kairosfocus

Folks: It seems I need to again pose the 18 Q's that objectors to design need to cogently answer on the principle that every tub must stand on its own bottom: _______________ >> 1: Is argument by inference to best current explanation a form of the fallacy of question-begging (as was recently asserted by design objector “Toronto”)? If you think so, why? 2: Is there such a thing as reasonable inductive generalisation that can identify reliable empirical signs of causal factors that may act on objects, systems, processes or phenomena etc., including (a) mechanical necessity leading to low contingency natural regularity, (b) chance contingency leading to stochastic distributions of outcomes and (c) choice contingency showing itself by certain commonly seen traces familiar from our routine experiences and observations of design? If not, why not? 3: Is it reasonable per sampling theory, that we should expect a chance based sample that stands to the population as one straw to a cubical hay bale 1,000 light years thick – rather roughly about as thick as our galaxy – more or less centred on Earth, to pick up anything but straw (the bulk of the population)? If you think so, why (in light of sampling theory – notice, NOT precise probability calculations)? [Cf. the underlying needle in a haystack discussion here on.] 4: Is it therefore reasonable to identify that functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I, the relevant part of Complex Specified Information as identified by Orgel and Wicken et al. and as later quantified by Dembski et al) is – on a broad observational base – a reliable sign of design? Why or why not? 5: Is it reasonable to compare this general analysis to the grounding of the statistical form of the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. that under relevant conditions, spontaneous large fluctuations from the typical range of the bulk of [microstate] possibilities will be vanishingly rare for reasonably sized systems? If you think not, why not? 6: Is digital symbolic code found to be stored in the string-structure configuration of chained monomers in D/RNA molecules, and does such function in algorithmic ways in protein manufacture in the living cell? If, you think not, why not in light of the generally known scientific findings on transcription, translation and protein synthesis? 7: Is it reasonable to describe such stored sequences of codons as “information” in the relevant sense? Why or why not? 8: Is the metric, Chi_500 = Ip*S – 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold and/or the comparable per aspect design inference filter as may be seen in flowcharts, a reasonable quantification or procedural application of the set of claims made by design thinkers? Or, any other related or similar metric, as has been posed by Durston et al, or Dembski, etc? Why, or why not – especially in light of modelling theory? 9: Is it reasonable to infer on this case that the origin of cell based life required the production of digitally coded FSCI — dFSCI — in string data structures, together with associated molecular processing machinery [cf. the vid here], joined to gated encapsulation, metabolism and a von Neumann kinematic self replicator [vNSR]? Why or why not? 10: Is it reasonable to infer that such a vNSR is an irreducibly complex entity and that it is required before there can be reproduction of the relevant encapsulated, gated, metabolising cell based life to allow for natural selection across competing sub populations in ecological niches? Why or why not? (And, if you think not, what is your empirical, observational basis for thinking that available physical/chemical forces and processes in a warm little pond or the modern equivalent, can get us, step by step, by empirically warranted stages, to the living cell?) 11: Is it therefore a reasonable view to infer – on FSCO/I, dFSCI and irreducible complexity as well as the known cause of algorithms, codes, symbol systems and execution machinery properly organised to effect such – that the original cell based life is on inference to best current explanation [IBCE], credibly designed? Why, or why not? 12: Further, as the increments of dFSCI to create dozens of major body plans is credibly 10 – 100+ mn bits each, dozens of times over across the past 600 MY or so, and much of it on the conventional timeline is in a 5 – 10 MY window on earth in the Cambrian era, is it reasonable to infer further on IBCE that major body plans show credible evidence of design? If not, why not, on what empirically, observationally warranted step by step grounds? 13: Is it fair or not fair to suggest that on what we have already done with digital technology and what we have done with molecular nanotech applied to the cell, it is credible that a molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond Venter etc would be a reasonable sufficient cause for what we see? If not, why not? [In short, the issue is: is inference to intelligent design specifically an inference to “supernatural” design? In this context, what does “supernatural” mean? “Natural”? Why do you offer these definitions and why should we accept them?] 14: Is or is it not reasonable to note that in contrast to the tendency to accuse design thinkers of being creationists in cheap tuxedos who want to inject “the supernatural” into science and so to produce a chaotic unpredictability: a: From Plato in The Laws Bk X on, the issue has been explanation by nature (= chance + necessity) vs ART or techne, i.e. purposeful and skilled intelligence acting by design, b: Historically, modern science was largely founded by people thinking in a theistic frame of thought and/or closely allied views, and who conceived of themselves as thinking God’s creative and sustaining thoughts — his laws of governing nature — after him, c: Theologians point out that the orderliness of God and our moral accountability imply an orderly and predictable world as the overwhelming pattern of events, d: Where also, the openness to Divine action beyond the usual course of nature for good purposes, implies that miracles are signs and as such need to stand out against the backdrop of such an orderly cosmos? [If you think not, why not?] 15: In light of all these and more, is the concept that we may legitimately, scientifically infer to design on inductively grounded signs such as FSCO/I a reasonable and scientific endeavour? Why or why not? 16: In that same light, is it the case that such a design theory proposal has been disestablished by actual observations contrary to its pivotal inductions and inferences to best explanations? (Or, has the debate mostly pivoted on latter-day attempted redefinition of science and its methods though so-called methodological naturalism that a priori undercuts the credibility of “undesirable” explanatory models of the past?) Why do you come to your conclusion? 17: Is it fair to hold – on grounds that inference to the best evolutionary materialism approved explanation of the past is not the same as inference to the best explanation of the past in light of all reasonably possible causal factors that could have been at work – that there is a problem of evolutionary materialist ideological dominance of relevant science, science education, and public policy institutions? Why or why not? . . . . 18: In light of concerns raised since Plato in The Laws Bk X on and up to the significance of challenge posed by Anscombe and others, that a worldview must have a foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT, how does evolutionary materialism – a descriptive term for the materialistic, blind- chance- and- necessity- driven- molecules- to- Mozart view of the world – cogently address morality in society and resolve the challenge that it opens the door to the rise of ruthless nihilistic factions whose view is in effect that as a consequence of living in a materialistic world, knowledge and values are inherently only subjective and/or relative so that might and manipulation make ‘right’? >> [Notice, the answers from a design perspective that I and others have had to offer have been linked immediately following, through the exposition at IOSE etc.] _______________ I observe just above the continued irresponsible pretence that design thinkers are unable to address the definition and quantification of information that functions in linguistic/ semantic and/or algorithmic contexts. This is false, and has been shown false ever since the objector Patrick's MathGrrl persona posed the question. The upshot of this is that we can measure information using the Shannon metric, modified to account for function and specificity [in various ways, I give one simple way, per observed linguistic or algorithmic function] and that we can on needle in haystack grounds establish a threshold beyond which it is maximally implausible that FSCO/I beyond that threshold has been achieved without intelligently directed organising work, IDOW, i.e. design. Namely: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold In particular, let us note form the OP how UB speaks of information:

in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information . . .

This precisely fits a generalised Shannon info comms network model (I omit noise but it is pervasive, especially in the channel): Source --> Encoder > Modulator > Transmitter --> /channel/ /channel/ --> Receiver > Demodulator > Decoder --> Sink For info to move from source to sink via a channel or by intermediate storage, there must be encoding and modulation, then transmission to the channel [or the storage medium] of some physical variable connected to the material objects that carry out the functions. Similarly, this requires certain protocols, which establish rules of symbolisation and communication across the channel. Once the receiver is in place and can detect the signal, we then can demodulate and decode, to produce a form amenable to the sink. For each level in eh process, there is a protocol, an arrangement of correspondence that allows for transforming the input and reversing the transformation to yield the output message. In simple AM for instance, a microphone transfers signals from air pressure variations to electrical analogues with a more or less linear transformation. This is then imposed as a modulation of the amplitude of an oscillator usually at much higher frequencies, often by simply varying power supply amplitude. This is then transferred to an antenna and coupled tot he air as radio waves. A receiving antenna then tunes to the carrier frequency and picks up the signal, which is then usually boosted and may be switched to intermediate frequencies by heterodyning, it being convenient to process at a fixed frequency, often 455 kHz. The IF signal is then demodulated, often by being fed into a low pass filter with a half wave rectifier, recovering the baseband audio electrical analogue signal. This is used to drive audio amplifiers and then a loudspeaker that recreates the original sound with more or less of fidelity. In the living cell, we have a digital comms system that uses sequences of nucleic acid bases and their configurations to store 4-state signals, similar to how dot patterns in braille encode the alphabet or prongs in a Yale type lock encode the sequence to open a lock. A complex process unwinds targetted DNA and transcribes to messenger RNA, which then is processed to remove non-coding segments and has a header and tail on it, and is then passed through a port in the nucleus to the endoplasmic reticulum that has the ribosomes. A ribosome captures the tape and begins coding from the head end with UGA, Methionine. In succession tRNA molecules add required AA's to make a protein until the end codon is reached. The protein chain is released and may be chaperoned to fold into useful form. Here the information that determines protein sequence is stored in DNA, is transferred in mRNA and is translated using the separate coded loading of tRNA with the correct AA's, using a configuration detection by loading enzymes. The AA's are added to a standard CCA coupler end, so the bond does not physically determine which AA goes on which tRNA. Thus we see an irreducibly complex communication network used in protein synthesis, and it is immediately an instance of the general system Shannon discussed. We routinely and easily see that the basic info content of the three-base codon is 2 bits [4-states] * 3 = 6 bits [2^6 = 64 possible states as the codon table illustrates . . . ], but also that the generally observed pattern that real codes have some degree of difference in frequency of character states means that the code uses a bit less than that per codon. Also, we have several codon states that carry the same AA meaning and three stop codons. We see here the impression of information unto matter, using rules, and a structured functional system of communication, one that is central to the processes of cell based life. We also see that we do have a storage and transmission side and a receiver side to the process. There are definite rules of correspondence on the TX and Rx sides, and these allow information to have effect in a material entity, by impressing information unto matter using conventions, to FORM matter to convey message using a FORM-al system. None of this is particularly hard to find out, if one does not know it already. That for weeks and months there is a strident insistence on denying and dismissing such, is utterly revealing on the blinding power of evolutionary materialist ideology. kairosfocus

UB, The problem is in your first premise. For example, you wrote

I believe your perspective is made clear here. You are talking about making arbitrary choices with regard to a program you write on top of a symbol system. I am talking about the symbol system itself. The fact that the letter “A” can be represented by “1000001” is arbitrary – not inexorable law.

The meaning of "arbitrary" is contextual in that it refers to "A" and "1000001”, which are abstractions. However, it's unclear what you mean by "arbitrary" in the context of "representations" of "causes" found it [01]. This is why I keep asking you for the consequences in leu of a specific definition. Nor was my criticism merely limited to this. critical rationalist

Upright BiPed is using words like “information”, “representation”, “arbitrary”, and “semiotic”, among others, idiosyncratically.

Prove it.

My definitions of those words have no bearing on his argument.

Yes it does. For one it will tell us why you don't understand those words. For another it will tell us if you are worth the effort.

If you think you can answer the questions I posed to Upright BiPed, please do so and we’ll see if your responses actually make his argument understandable and if he agrees with you.

I have answered your questions and all you do is to repeat them. And that pretty much proves that you are willfully ignorant. Joe

Umm Reciprocating Bill doesn't know what he is talking about. BTW onlooker, Upright Biped's argument is directly opened to challenges. And I have told you how to do so. That you refuse to even try tells us that you have nothing. And your questions prove that you are clueless. For example:

- How exactly can information be measured?

In bits but that is irrelevant, That you keep bringing it up exposes your deceptive tactics.

- Does information, by your definition, have standard units?

Yes, the bit but again that is irrelevant

- Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

Yes and you are using it right now. Buy a dictionary.

- What is your precise definition of “arbitrary”?

Look it up, what is wrong with you? Joe

Upright BiPed,

In the end (after 120+ days) the objector finally conceded that my usage had been valid all along.

This is factually incorrect. What happened is that you were equivocating, using at least two meanings for the word "entailment". Reciprocating Bill makes this very clear in this comment and throughout the enclosing thread, for anyone interested in reviewing the discussion for themselves. onlooker

Mung,

My definitions are immaterial and will not help me achieve the goal of understanding his.

And that’s just a flat out lie.

It's a simple statement of fact. Upright BiPed is using words like "information", "representation", "arbitrary", and "semiotic", among others, idiosyncratically. My definitions of those words have no bearing on his argument. Using my definitions when his are clearly different makes no sense. You are correct that there is dishonesty in this discussion, but it's on the part of people who are desperate to avoid making their logic understandable and those who support them.

Let me know if you want to try again.

I'm not the one who has stopped trying. If you think you can answer the questions I posed to Upright BiPed, please do so and we'll see if your responses actually make his argument understandable and if he agrees with you. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Your 282 is completely non-responsive to the questions I raised about the definitions an logic of your argument.

Let’s not lose sight of your question. You asked about my use of the word arbitrary, remember? My argument states there is a ‘materially arbitrary relationship’ between a) an arrangement of matter and b) the effect it evokes within a system. Your question was what I meant by the word “arbitrary”. You asked if it simply means “separate” or something else as well. In the course of your comments, [snip]

And you go off into another round of evasion without answering the simple and direct questions I asked. Once again, your attempt to distract from your refusal to clarify your argument is a transparent rhetorical ploy. You are continuing to demonstrate that you are so lacking in confidence in your own position that you will do anything to avoid making it clear. If your previous pattern of behavior is any indication, your next steps will be to continue to avoid putting your argument at any risk of being challenged, either by refusing to engage in good faith or by running away, and then to claim victory, collecting kudos from a half-dozen ID proponents, none of whom are able to defend your argument any better than you. If your desire for those accolades and your fear of being proven wrong are greater than the value you place on intellectual integrity, well, that's your choice. If, on the other hand, you are at all interested in finding out if your views can stand up to a challenge, if you do value the truth at all, I'm still more than happy to try to understand your argument. Here are the current open issues again, summarized for your convenience: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? - What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean in that premise? onlooker

For example, one could scan and encode the genome of Mycoplasma mycoides, transmit it to some other computer, then synthesize it unchanged based on the techniques developed by Craig Ventier’s group.

Note that I said nothing about implanting the resulting genome in a cell.

Umm Venter's group implanted it in the cell. And the synthesized/ artificial DNA has nothing- no knowledge- everything it needs is in the cell. Joe

PJ: Appreciated. KF kairosfocus

F/N For those puzzled by the debate over verification, falsification, corroboration and induction, this little introductory note on Popper's challenges with corroboration should suffice to show that tested empirical support for a claim is still important and provides a degree of warrant for accepting (provisionally of course) those which have a good track record of testing and prediction. In short, inference to best current explanation backed up by empirical testing and support, is a serious view and induction is not dead. KF kairosfocus

KF Thank you for your detailed response to CR. I have been glued to this thread, and others like it from the beginning, and saw it as a real shame that people like CR couldn't just stick to the initail points raised in the OP. From what I can see you have done a marvelous job. Much appreciated. PeterJ

UB: CR objects to the basic definition that knowledge is well warranted, credibly true belief. He sees such as a naive justificationism that especially on matters of experience leads to knowledge claims based on induction which in his view is never justified. This is a spin off Popper. He is apparently unable to accept that from Newton and Locke et al on, we have a clear understanding of scientific knowledge as provisional, and warranted on induction where by evidence provides reasonable and often substantial support but not ultimate and unquestionable proof. Hence some of my remarks just above. KF kairosfocus

CR: I am sorry to have to say this in so many words, but it seems you are not in the same reality as the rest of us. Also, you seem to insist on both strawman tactic snip and snipe games and recirculating endlessly already adequately corrected erroneous objecting talking points; which creates the impression of being here to object and disrupt rather than seriously dialogue. Let me speak to points from 328 to show what I mean: 1: CR, 328: FSCIO/I isn’t well defined. Here, first, you don't even seem to bother to get the abbreviation right: Functionally Specific Complex organisation and associated Information, FSCO/I. You also fail to address the way that it is developed, e.g. here on in context, and seem to want to take for granted the objections as though they are well founded. They are not, for reasons the context of the linked will make plain. Namely:

a: functional specificity of configurations is objectively real and routinely observable, just think about finding a spare part of of what happened when that comma sent a NASA rocket veering off path and forced a self destruct. b: Complex, functionally specific organisation with associated information is equally real and observable, as we can see from how AutoCAD etc in effect create node and arc meshes to describe objects and functional networks through sets of bit strings. c: As the AutoCAD file size number also shows, such are measurable in bits. d: In addition, we can show that on the gamut of the solar system, the maximum sample that can be taken with atomic resources using the fastest ionic chemical reaction rates as clock tick, is as one straw to a cubical haystack 1,000 LY across, i.e about as thick as our galaxy. e: So, sampling theory tells us that -- even if such were superposed on our galaxy -- we have no right to expect anything from such a sample but straw. This is the needle in the haystack, on steroids. f: In addition, we may quantify this threshold, once we can observe functional specificity being present (and using S = 1/0 as a dummy variable, default 0 but 1 if FS is objectively present) and produce a Chi_500 metric, as the linked shows, where measured info content is I: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold of sufficient complexity to be FSCO/I

I therefore must say to you that beyond a certain point, sustaining a dismissive distortion in the face of plainly adequate correction becomes willful distortion of truth. 2: Nor can we observe causes This is at best nearly meaningless pedantry. Consider a dropped heavy object, where reliably we see that it falls at 9.8 N/kg. This is mechanical necessity in action. Similarly, if the object is a fair die, it will reliably then tumble and come to rest with uppermost sides from the set {1, 2, . . . 6} at probability 1/6 per face. Much the same would obtain for a 2-sided die, i.e a coin, where the H/T would be with probability 1/2 apiece. This is chance based high contingency. Now, if we had a string of 504 such coins in a slotted tray, we could find the coins in states from TT . . . T to HH . . . H by chance and/or by choice. And as a simple case, if we were to see the coins arranged so as to show the first 72 letters of this post, in order, we would with all but certainty, have excellent reason to infer that the best and empirically warranted explanation of such was intelligently directed organising work (IDOW), AKA design. It is quite reasonable to say of such that we may see the relevant causes in action, and that we can trace them from empirically testable, reliable signs. For instance, due to the binomial distribution for 500 coins [~ 5.24*10^151 possibilities], the at random tosses would be overwhelmingly near 50:50 H/T in no particular order. The bare possibility of getting a special arrangement as above, would be so remote on the gamut of our solar system's atomic and temporal resources that we can dismiss the possibility of this by chance as all but impossible. Such is, reliably, empirically unobservable. An unwinnable lottery. It is thus reasonable to say that we observe causes in action, mechanical necessity leading to natural regularities, chance contingency to stochastic distributions, and choice contingency often leading to things such as FSCO/I. 3: you’re ignoring what we do know about designers: namely our best current explanation for how all knowledge is created. Strawman. 4: I’m pointing out the ambiguity of the terms “relationship” and arbitrary” in the first premise of UB’s argument. Strawman. Context makes the meaning abundantly clear. 5: Entirely new cells are constructed when they divide. This includes all of the components of the system you are referring to. Unless a designer is intervening to build tRNA when a cell divides, the knowledge of how to construct all of them is found in the genome. Strawman, off a red herring. What you are distorting is the reported, easily shown fact:

KF: the AA’s loaded on the tRNA’s that key to the mRNA codons, are loaded on a standard CCA end. They are INFORMATIONALLY loaded based on the config of the particular tRNA, by special loading enzymes. That is the connexion between the codon triplet and the AA added to the protein chain is informational not driven by deterministic chemical forces.

You are ducking the established fact of INFORMATION ENCODED IN MATERIAL MEDIA AND ALSO USED TO DECIDE WHICH aa GOES ON WHAT tRNA, TO MATCH TO CODON IN THE RIBOSOME, SO CORRECTLY CHAINING A PROTEIN THROUGH TRANSLATION FROM THE RNA CODE. And, since that process has in it oodles of FSCO/I, e.g. the genome starts at about 100 - 1,000 bits of digitally stored info, we know the best explanation for such FSCO/I per reliable sign, IDOW, or design. Life's origin is on design, the onward replication and reproduction from generation to generation carries forward what was built in. 6: Unless a designer is intervening to build tRNA when a cell divides, the knowledge of how to construct all of them is found in the genome. So, the question is, how was this knowledge created? Strawman, again. Cf just above. 7: where did I imply this? [inability to provide a counter instance to FSCO/I reliably being produced in our observation by IDOW] This is evident from your tactics, as was pointed out in 306, above but neatly omitted:

CR, 299: it is also parochial in that it implicitly includes the idea that knowledge / information must be justified by some ultimate source. How do you justify whatever arbiter defines this relationship? And how do you justify that, etc? Will you respond with a serious question this time? KF (pardon typo): In effect5 you grudgingly imply that you cannot provide an actual case of coded, functionally specific information of 500 + bits coming about by known forces of chance and necessity without intelligent direction. That is obvious for if you had a case you would not be going into such convolutions but would triumphantly trot it out. But the Canali on mars failed, Weasel failed, GA’s failed, and the Youtube vid on how a clock could evolve from gears and pendulums failed too, etc. So you cannot bring forth an actual case to make your point. To brazen it out, you want to demand the right to suggest without evidence that chance and necessity can and do on the gamut of accessible resources, create FSCO/I. Sorry, a demonstrated source — design — is an obviously superior explanation to something that has no such base. FYI, there is no question-begging circle on what “must” be the source of knowledge, codes, intelligent messages etc, WE HAVE OBSERVATIONS, abundant and unexceptioned observations, that show that FSCO/I comes from design. So, you ate going up against an empirically abundantly justified induction. And your trick is to assert question-begging.

The strawman tactic is evident. 8: Pointing out that justification is impossible is not “going into such convolutions”. It’s a criticism of one’s form of epistemology and the impact it would have on their conclusions. Of course, warrant per observation, consistent pattern seen in such observations and reasonable inference to best explanation, is sufficient for all practical and responsible purposes. But to the hyperskeptic such as CR, such can be simply swept away by using dismissive words. When it is suitable. "Justification [--> more accurately, warrant] is impossible" of course cannot be consistently lived by. It refutes itself. Let me give a case of warrant to undeniably certain truth. Statement E: Error exists. This is obviously so per general observation and experience, but it is also an undeniably true claim. To try to deny E at once instantiates it, as either E or else its denial NOT-E must be false. So, even to deny E ends up supporting it. Similarly, it is a reliable induction that a dropped heavy object near earth falls more or less towards the centre thereof, with initial acceleration 9.8 N/kg. Likewise it can be warranted that reasonably pure water at sea level boils at about 100 degrees C, under standard atmosphere conditions. Similarly, there is a certain body of Pt alloy near Paris that is the standard of mass, the kilogram. One metre is the distance light travels in about 3 ns. (There is a more exact time, used in the current formal definition of the metre. It is also demonstrable that this definition is a successor to one in terms of a certain number of wavelengths of light, thence onwards the distance between two scratch-marks on a certain bar of Pt alloy, and thence onward per the original definition, a fraction of the distance from the Earth's pole to the equator through Paris. That is an example of historical warrant that produces morally certain knowledge.) 9: Where does your conception of human knowledge differ from the conception I outlined? Please be specific. Here’s your chance to show that my assessment is wrong, by pointing out how your view differs, in detail. Strawman, that pretends that there was no answer to the assertions, at length previously. The above list of cases that can be fairly easily fleshed out, should suffice to show, again, why CR's claims are utterly wrong-headed. 10: justification is impossible. Of course, being open to criticism, please feel free to point out how it’s possible, in practice . . . . How is it an error to point out your argument is parodical, in that it completely ignores other forms of epistemology? What sort of acknowledgment would “correct” or “amend” this? Should I deny they are well formed or that they exist as alternatives? What actually seems to be going on is that you cannot recognize your specific conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. Specifically, your response so far seem to be that “everyone knows we use induction”, as if you accept it uncritically and that it’s a taboo to even question it. Yet, you haven’t actually presented a “principle of induction” that works in practice. The strawman tactics continue, again and again. Onlookers who wish to see more of why this is completely a caricature, may wish to follow the original post and exchanges in this thread. (CR is trying to rebut the force of Q 1 of 18. He manifestly fails but is unwilling to acknowledge adequate and repeated correction.) KF kairosfocus

CR, Perhaps your inability to enage has to do with the fact your concepts don't impact the material observations made in the OP. Many have tried to get you to grasp this. Here is a demonstration, which I will take from your diversionary comment at 331:

What I find particularly interesting is how supporters here keep making arguments that implies knowledge must come from justified sources"

Specifically state the material observation made in the OP used to argue that "knowledge must come from justified sources". It doesn't exist. Upright BiPed

CR:

So, it seems that not only do supporters deny that knowledge is created, but they deny holding a conception of human knowledge that denies it.

1. What is knowledge? 2. Who (or What) creates knowledge? 3. How is knowledge created? 4. How is knowledge retained? 5. How is knowledge transmitted? Mung

What I find particularly interesting is how supporters here keep making arguments that implies knowledge must come from justified sources; yet when I directly ask if they hold an authoritative conception of human knowledge they act if they are offended and/or refuse to answer the question. This is even after pointing out the parallels between such a conception clearly overlap clams made elsewhere on this blog and how the consequences of such a conception match just the sort of objections and misrepresentations of Darwinism. So, it seems that not only do supporters deny that knowledge is created, but they deny holding a conception of human knowledge that denies it. critical rationalist

CR: Yet, in both cases, it seems that UB isn’t actually responding to criticism.

CR (like Onlooker) complains that I am not responding to his criticism. He came to this thread in comment #23 and immediately wanted to know what I meant by the word "arbitrary". Oddly enough, (although he criticizes me now for doing the exact same thing with Onlooker) he actually used an example to demonstrate what he thought of the word "arbitrary". By doing so, I could immediately understand his use of the word. As a software developer, CR relayed an example of the "arbitrary" decisions that his clients would make regarding software he would write. So in comment #30, I responded:

I believe your perspective is made clear here. You are talking about making arbitrary choices with regard to a program you write on top of a symbol system. I am talking about the symbol system itself. The fact that the letter “A” can be represented by “1000001” is arbitrary – not inexorable law.

And what was his response to this? Zero. Then 247 comments later, after immense diatribes about every conceivable topic under the sun (and every "ism" and "ist" I could possibly be) I once again tried to re-engage CR on his original critique. I restated:

I believe your perspective is made clear here. You are talking about making arbitrary choices with regard to a program you write on top of a symbol system. I am talking about the symbol system itself. The fact that the letter “A” can be represented by “1000001” is arbitrary – not inexorable law.

What was his response to this? Zero. So tell me, how much weight should I give this person who avoids a discussion about the very thing he objects to? The same goes for Onlooker. Both of them flip and flop around pretending they just can't get their hands around what I mean by “materially arbitrary” but neither of them wants to engage in an example of it – even the one who provided his own example ! . . . Here are just two quick examples of what I have said on this very thread about my use of the word “arbitrary”:

The first object is a representation; an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent). … and [regarding the word "arbitrary"] It’s not really the word I rely upon; it the material observation which has been made. Proteins aren’t constructed from nucleotides. There is no inherent physical property in the pattern of cytosine-thymine-adenine which maps to leucine. That mapping is context specific, not an inexorable law. This has been shown in the lab.

And I have even gone so far as to say:

And if they are not the same thing, then the relationship between them is necessarily arbitrary from a physical perspective (regardless of how that relationship originated). If you do not like that word, you can use whatever word you like. I have seen such described as “immaterial”, or “non-material”, or “physico-dynamically inert”, etc, etc. You can also use the word Dr Liddle suggested – “materially dissociated”. It matters not, to me.

And how many times were these comments directly addressed by either CR or Onlooker? Zero. ...

Mung: Upright BiPed, you are such a trooper, and I commend you.

Thanks Mung. Some may wonder why I’ve refused to play definition derby on this thread. I know exactly why. I literally just spent over two fricken months arguing at TSZ over my use of the word “entailment”. I used the word in a sentence, then in the very next sentence I gave the Merriam-Webster definition of the word, and then coherently restated my first sentence using the dictionary definition in place of the word itself. What more could one ask, right? In the end (after 120+ days) the objector finally conceded that my usage had been valid all along. What a pathetic way to have to protect your beliefs. Definition derby is a defensive strategy, not a search for clarity. Upright BiPed

Joe: Why is it “non-explanatory”? And what is “non-explanatory knowledge”? I've already explained the difference at length here and here in this thread. Are you sure you are actually reading my comments? CR: For example, one could scan and encode the genome of Mycoplasma mycoides, transmit it to some other computer, then synthesize it unchanged based on the techniques developed by Craig Ventier’s group. Joe: But Venter et al., used an existing cell minus its DNA. Knowledge did NOT emerge from material arrangements of matter. Again, are you sure you're reading my comments? Do you know what this was actually in response to? Your comment suggests that you do not. Mung asked: "transmitted how?" My response was..

For example, one could scan and encode the genome of Mycoplasma mycoides, transmit it to some other computer, then synthesize it unchanged based on the techniques developed by Craig Ventier’s group.

Note that I said nothing about implanting the resulting genome in a cell. critical rationalist

CR: Take a piece of paper and write the letters “TGCA” on it. […] Now, replace the actual base pairs “TGAC” in an organism’s genome with any of the above. Do you end up with the same effect? KF: You know better than this, You know tha t the genetic code works off D/RNA bases and that information is coded in their sequence. This is easily accessible and has been presented to you any number of times. You know what a rhetorical question is, right? I'm pointing out the ambiguity of the terms "relationship" and arbitrary" in the first premise of UB's argument. KF: In addition, the AA’s loaded on the tRNA’s that key to the mRNA codons, are loaded on a standard CCA end. They are INFORMATIONALLY loaded based on the config of the particular tRNA, by special loading enzymes. That is the connexion between the codon triplet and the AA added to the protein chain is informational not driven by deterministic chemical forces. Entirely new cells are constructed when they divide. This includes all of the components of the system you are referring to. Unless a designer is intervening to build tRNA when a cell divides, the knowledge of how to construct all of them is found in the genome. So, the question is, how was this knowledge created? KF: In effect5 you grudgingly imply that you cannot provide an actual case of coded, functionally specific information of 500 + bits coming about by known forces of chance and necessity without intelligent direction. Exactly where did I imply this? KF: That is obvious for if you had a case you would not be going into such convolutions but would triumphantly trot it out. But the Canali on mars failed, Weasel failed, GA’s failed, and the Youtube vid on how a clock could evolve from gears and pendulums failed too, etc. So you cannot bring forth an actual case to make your point. Pointing out that justification is impossible is not "going into such convolutions". It's a criticism of one's form of epistemology and the impact it would have on their conclusions. Perhaps you would like to answer the questions I asked UB? Where does your conception of human knowledge differ from the conception I outlined? Please be specific. Here's your chance to show that my assessment is wrong, by pointing out how your view differs, in detail. KF: To brazen it out, you want to demand the right to suggest without evidence that chance and necessity can and do on the gamut of accessible resources, create FSCO/I. Sorry, a demonstrated source — design — is an obviously superior explanation to something that has no such base. I've already outlined why ID is a bad explanation on your "Questions on the logical and scientific status of design theory for objectors (and supporters)" thread, here. I take it you haven't had the time to address them yet? KF: FYI, there is no question-begging circle on what “must” be the source of knowledge, codes, intelligent messages etc, WE HAVE OBSERVATIONS, abundant and unexceptioned observations, that show that FSCO/I comes from design. FSCIO/I isn't well defined. Nor can we observe causes. And you're ignoring what we do know about designers: namely our best current explanation for how all knowledge is created. KF: So, you ate going up against an empirically abundantly justified induction. And your trick is to assert question-begging. My response is to point out that justification is impossible. Of course, being open to criticism, please feel free to point out how it's possible, in practice. KF: It seems unlikely that you will acknowledge error and amend your thinking, but the genuine onlookers can see for themselves what is going on. How is it an error to point out your argument is parodical, in that it completely ignores other forms of epistemology? What sort of acknowledgment would "correct" or "amend" this? Should I deny they are well formed or that they exist as alternatives? What actually seems to be going on is that you cannot recognize your specific conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. Specifically, your response so far seem to be that "everyone knows we use induction", as if you accept it uncritically and that it's a taboo to even question it. Yet, you haven't actually presented a "principle of induction" that works in practice. critical rationalist

Or maybe, because the definitions are not mathematically rigorous (wink, wink), the TSZ denizens refuse to accept them. Joe

F/N: Of course, one familiar selectively hyperskeptical rhetorical game is the infinite regress of demanded definitions (including of course the operational definition . . . and what is the operational defn of an op defn? . . . why is 1/273.16 of the triple point of H2O often a less satisfactory definition than a measure of the average random energy per degree of freedom at micro level?). Definitions stop at primitives and examples that define concepts. Information long since has been adequately defined and representation, likewise. Function, is recognisable from relevant cases in point and specificity of function is familiar to anyone who has had to get just the right part for a bit of electronics to work. KF kairosfocus

Upright BiPed, you are such a trooper, and I commend you. represent

1.a. To stand for; symbolize: The bald eagle represents the United States. 1.b. To indicate or communicate by signs or symbols: Letters of the alphabet represent sounds.

I love that first one. The bald eagle represents the United States. Upright BiPed, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to take every instance of "United States" that you can find and replace it with "the bald eagle." Does it produce the same effect? If not, then your argument clearly fails. TSZ rejoices. Mung

The non-explanatory knowledge of how to adapt matter into tRNA is stored in specific regions of the genome.

Why is it "non-explanatory"? And what is "non-explanatory knowledge"?

For example, one could scan and encode the genome of Mycoplasma mycoides, transmit it to some other computer, then synthesize it unchanged based on the techniques developed by Craig Ventier’s group.

But Venter et al., used an existing cell minus its DNA. Knowledge did NOT emerge from material arrangements of matter.

Onlooker is (and reasonably so) refusing to move forward until clear definitions are provided.

The definitions are in dictionaries. Joe

Mung: Actually, T, G, C and A are themselves representations. CR: Representations of what? Among other things:

Nucleosides are glycosylamines consisting of a nucleobase (often referred to as simply base) bound to a ribose or deoxyribose sugar via a beta-glycosidic linkage. Examples of nucleosides include cytidine, uridine, adenosine, guanosine, thymidine and inosine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleoside Am I the only one not struck by the wondrous fact that 'A' does not solely represent Adenosine? What would communication be like if 'A' was a single sole representation? Mung

CR:

Onlooker is (and reasonably so) refusing to move forward until clear definitions are provided.

And yet when onlooker was faced with actually discussing definitions, onlooker, quite unreasonably, declined. onlooker:

My definitions are immaterial and will not help me achieve the goal of understanding his.

One can only hope that you, CR, are not taking the same attitude towards definitions and mutual understanding. How can his/her/its definition of a term be immaterial to understanding? If Upright BiPed defines horse as: "an odd-toed ungulate mammal belonging to the taxonomic family Equidae." And onlooker defines horse as: "having a vocal tone characterized by weakness of intensity and excessive breathiness" Surely one can question whether the two of them are even talking about the same thing. What reasonable person would blindly accept onlooker's assertion that his definition of horse is immaterial? Mung

Mung: Actually, T, G, C and A are themselves representations. Representations of what? And are they representations in the same sense as "TGCA" are representations of the actual bases T, G, C, A? If not, in what sense are they representations? Furthermore, whatever it is that T, G, C, A themselves supposedly represent, do they represent something else? And does this something else also represent something else as well, etc.? critical rationalist

I'd point out that Onlooker and I have taken different approaches to criticizing UB's argument. Onlooker is (and reasonably so) refusing to move forward until clear definitions are provided. On the other hand, I'm asking for and conjecturing the *consequences* of UB's argument in attempt to deduce them. Specifically, the consequences his argument would have for evolutionary theory, conceptions of knowledge, etc., then pointing out the implicit assumptions they would make. Yet, in both cases, it seems that UB isn't actually responding to criticism. critical rationalist

UB: CR, you didn’t answer Mung’s questions. CR: …the knowledge of how to create biological adaptations is genuinely created. Mung: “Stored where?”

What do I mean by “knowledge”? I’m referring to information which when embedded in a storage medium tends to remain there and is consistent with Karl Popper’s definition that knowledge is independent of anyone’s belief. While they serve many other purposes as well, both brains and DNA act as storage mediums.

The non-explanatory knowledge of how to adapt matter into tRNA is stored in specific regions of the genome. Mung: “Transmitted how?” Through the creation of a series of knowledge laden processes which allow us to scan the genome, encode it, transmit it in some agreed on form, and then reverse the process. For example, the knowledge of how to build computers is created. Systems are constructed and are sent to different locations. We can say the same regarding network hardware, scanners, storage systems, etc. They are then connected and the transfer occurs. Since different hardware designs can implement the same standard, you do not need exact duplicate systems on both ends. For example, one could scan and encode the genome of Mycoplasma mycoides, transmit it to some other computer, then synthesize it unchanged based on the techniques developed by Craig Ventier's group. Note: these are high-level explanations, that address the emergence of knowledge from material arrangements of matter. critical rationalist

CR:

All of my examples were representations of the actual base pairs TGCA, which are arrangements of matter.

Actually, T, G, C and A are themselves representations. One might even say they are representations of representations. Which, I guess, makes your examples representations of representations of representations. Now, what makes you think that all representations are transitive and that a representation can be substituted for what it represents to the same effect? Mung

CR:

IOW, it’s unclear how the information from quasars can get “transferred” into our brains, let alone grow more accurate, via inductivism. Yet, there it is.

Quasars are sending us information? About what? Their favorite color? Mung

CR:

What is information? What does it mean to transfer it?

How and why are you posting here at UD? Mung

onlooker:

I am interested in understanding Upright BiPed’s argument detailed in the original post to this thread. I have questions that prevent me from understanding it. Why do you think it is unreasonable to ask for clarification? If you feel that the argument as stated is perfectly clear, I invite you to answer the questions I have posed to Upright BiPed. If you can add some clarity and Upright BiPed agrees with your clarifications, we might be able to make progress more quickly.

I see now that was just so much hooey on your part. You don't want to understand. You don't even want to try to understand.

I strongly recommend Ray Dalio’s principles as an explanation of the importance of brutal honesty and direct communication in order to root out flaws in our own opinions.

Let me know when you want to start being honest. I posted in good faith. You didn't even attempt to engage in an ongoing dialog. I should read a 123 page treatise to try to figure out why? No chance in hell. You're no more open to honest discussion that was Liddle when she showed up here. Let's not forget, you were the one who invited me to attempt to assist in in bridging the gap between you and Upright BiPed. here

My definitions are immaterial and will not help me achieve the goal of understanding his.

And that's just a flat out lie. If Liddle was in fact banned from UD it's probably due to similar behavior. Actual actions inconsistent with stated intent. Dishonesty. Your understanding of terms is of utmost relevance, by your own admission. Yet now you say what you think a term means is immaterial. ARE YOU SERIOUS!? I guess not. Remember, I am a third party here. You don't understand what UPB means by representation? Well, what do you think the term means. Maybe you two are closer to agreement than you think. But you'd rather not say what you think it means. You don't understand what UPB means by information? Well, what do you think the term means. Maybe you two are closer to agreement than you think. But you'd rather not say what you think it means. Rejoice. You've exposed yourself for all to see. Let me know if you want to try again. Otherwise please stop wasting our time. You're turning out to be no better than a troll. You have an idea of what information is, otherwise you would not be posting here on UD and asking questions. You probably have some idea what is involved in the transmission of information over the internet as well. The fact that you won't even acknowledge the relevance of my questions to the current debate is telling indeed. Mung

And in a show of total confusion petrushkas sez:

we have spotted him the semiotic part. Now he needs to prove a negative. That the system could not have evolved. That’s the ID movement in a nutshell. The assertion that you can prove a negative by thinking or reasoning about it.

So Upright Biped needs to provide evidence for YOUR position? The point is, petrushka, there isn't any positive evidence in support of the premise that blind and undirected processes can produce semiotic systems. There doesn't even appear to be a testable hypothesis for such a thing. Also ALL design inferences are forced to eliminate nature, operating freely, BEFORE they can say design. That is the very nature of Newton's four rules of scientific investigation. IOW all you guys have to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes ae up to the task and Upright Biped's argument no longer suports ID. The PROBLEM, however, is you won't ever do so. Joe

That is why Mung’s Q 5 above is so apt: “Attempt to relate the activities you are engaged in and the processes that must take place when you post here on UD to the above questions.”

Thanks KF! Mung

keiths is still spewing:

Anyone out there who actually understands Upright’s argument: Please present it clearly, concisely and explicitly, using the style I employed in the OP, either here or at UD.

Again, why is it that only the anti-IDists, who claim they are smarter than us IDiots, cannot understand Upright Biped's argument? Is keiths really admitting that he is dumber than us IDiots? Strange that evos cannot communicate the argument for their position in a clear, non-equivocating way. And all they can do is obfuscate whenever an IDist steps forward and clearly communicates the argument for ID. Joe

Why is the same explanation for the origin of a rock found in a field insufficient for the origin of a watch?

Rocks can be reduced to matter and energy, watches cannot. Watches require something other than matter and energy to explain their existence. Ribosomes are not reducible to matter and energy, they, like watches, cars and computers, although not in violation of any physical laws are not explained by them. Unfortunately for CR darwinism cannot explain tRNA, mRNA, tRNA ligases nor genes with knowledge…

Why is that Joe?

The main reason is there isn't any evidentiary supprt for darwinism producing them. No testable hypothesis for the premise.

DNA evolved from primitive replicators which gradually included better error checking.

Evidence please. Joe

Kairosfocus, I am not sure they even understand English, let alone adress your points.... Joe

CR, you didn't answer Mung's questions. "Stored where?" "Transmitted how?" Upright BiPed

@mung#267 CR:…the knowledge of how to create biological adaptations is genuinely created. Mung:

Created by who or what? And stored where? And transmitted how?

See comment #302.

And what is a non-genuine creation?

All bad explanations for the biosphere either fail to explain how the knowledge in adaptations is created or attempt to do so badly. Specifically, they all discount the role that knowledge plays in the creation of biosphere. The worst offender is, ironically, creationism. For example, If a supernatural being created the world we observe at the moment that Darwin (appeared) to have made his greatest discovery, the true creator of that discovery would not have been Darwin but that supernatural being. And we can say the same regarding all earlier discoveries as well. Such a theory denies the only creation that did actually take place in the origin of the designer's discovery. This is a form of genuine creation, which is possible due to emergent levels of explanation. So, Creationism is misleading named. It is not a theory explaining knowledge as arising due to creation, but the exact opposite. It denies that creation happened in reality by placing the origin of that knowledge in an explanationless realm. Creationism is a general purpose means of creation denial. For example, one could appeal to the logical possibility that some intelligent designer with no defined limitations created the world when you (appeared) to have authored the comment I'm responding to. Therefore, the author of the comment wouldn't be you, but that abstract designer. The very idea of an open-ended stream of genuine knowledge creation conflicts with creationism by undermining its motivation. Potentially, at some time in the future, anyone will be able to design and implement a more harmonious, moral, complex biosphere than the one here on Earth. And they will do assisted by massively powerful computers created using this same open-ended stream of knowledge creation. At which point, the suppled designer of our biosphere will appear morally deficient and intellectually unremarkable. This leads me to a question: If you were sent forward in time and observed a demonstration of such a biosphere, would you still be a design proponent? Of course, there is always the chance that we will choose not to create the necessary knowledge in time and eventually go extinct as a species. But the potential is there. For example Mitt Romney thinks man made global warming is real, yet his position is it would be wrong to do anything about it. This too discounts the role that knowledge plays in the creation of the biosphere. Mung:

And what’s required to get to the point where biological adaptations are even possible?

In the same way that systems can be digital despite taking different forms, such as cogs or transistors, digital systems can have different degrees of error correction. Even the slightest degree of improvement can make a difference. DNA evolved from primitive replicators which gradually included better error checking. DNA stopped evolving once it make the leap to universality - the ability to encode instructions for all forms of life on our planet, including those that wouldn't exist for billions of years, along with those that do not yet exist. Mung:

What is an adaptation, after all?

From a comment on another thread...

It was William Paley who noted some objects not only can serve a purpose but there are objects which are *adapted* to a purpose. For example, if you slightly altered the design of a watch (or a microscope) it would serve the purpose of keeping time (or magnifying samples) less well, or not even at all. On the other hand, we can use the sun to keep time, even though it would serve that purpose equally well if its features were slightly or even massively modified. Just as we adapt the earth’s raw materials to serve a purpose, we also find uses for the sun it was never design or adapted to provided. So, merely being useful for a purpose, without being hard to vary and retaining that ability, does not reflect the appearance of design. IOW, good designs are hard to vary. This is a reflection of our long chain of independent, hard to vary explanations for how microscopes work. Adaptations represent transformations of matter. In the case of a microscope, raw materials are adapted into glass and metal, which are adapted into lenses, gears and frames. These components are adapted into a particular configuration in a particular order. If you varied these adaptations slightly the microscope would not serve the purpose of magnifying samples as well, or not even at all.

These transformation occur with the requisite knowledge of how to preform them is present. critical rationalist

PS: Joe, any sign of a serious response to my syllabus of 18 questions? kairosfocus

Joe: It would be amusing to see the flailing around at TSZ, if it were not in the end ever so sad. What is plain is that they don't seem to realise that he design inference is working the same way that their own attempts to reconstruct the past of life do, only on better empirical warrant. For, we do routinely see designers creating FSCO/I but have never seen blind chance and mechanical necessity doing that through accumulated accidents. And, we know that there is a major gap for the solar system or the cosmos to have enough atomic and temporal resources even in 13.7 bn y, to search sufficient of the config space of 500 or 1,000 bits, that even 500 or 1000 bits could be reasonably seen as coming up by blind processes, per sampling theory. The only thing that is reasonably warranted on such processes would be sampling the bulk of possibilities, which would not be functional. In short, it is clear that we are dealing with ideology, not scientific rationality. CR: Re: Take a piece of paper and write the letters “TGCA” on it. […] Now, replace the actual base pairs “TGAC” in an organism’s genome with any of the above. Do you end up with the same effect? You know better than this, You know tha t the genetic code works off D/RNA bases and that information is coded in their sequence. This is easily accessible and has been presented to you any number of times. In addition, the AA's loaded on the tRNA's that key to the mRNA codons, are loaded on a standard CCA end. They are INFORMATIONALLY loaded based on the config of the particular tRNA, by special loading enzymes. That is the connexion between the codon triplet and the AA added to the protein chain is informational not driven by deterministic chemical forces. But it is evident that the facts do not point where you will so you are setting up and knocking over strawmen. This is even worse, and condescending as well:

it is also parochial in that it implicitly includes the idea that knowledge / information must be justified by some ultimate source. How do you justify whatever arbiter defines this relationship? And how do you justify that, etc? Will you respond with a serious question this time?

In effect5 you grudgingly imply that you cannot provide an actual case of coded, functionally specific information of 500 + bits coming about by known forces of chance and necessity without intelligent direction. That is obvious for if you had a case you would not be going into such convolutions but would triumphantly trot it out. But the Canali on mars failed, Weasel failed, GA's failed, and the Youtube vid on how a clock could evolve from gears and pendulums failed too, etc. So you cannot bring forth an actual case to make your point. To brazen it out, you want to demand the right to suggest without evidence that chance and necessity can and do on the gamut of accessible resources, create FSCO/I. Sorry, a demonstrated source -- design -- is an obviously superior explanation to something that has no such base. FYI, there is no question-begging circle on what "must" be the source of knowledge, codes, intelligent messages etc, WE HAVE OBSERVATIONS, abundant and unexceptioned observations, that show that FSCO/I comes from design. So, you ate going up against an empirically abundantly justified induction. And your trick is to assert question-begging. Sorry, FAIL. It seems unlikely that you will acknowledge error and amend your thinking, but the genuine onlookers can see for themselves what is going on. KF kairosfocus

Onlooker:

Your 282 is completely non-responsive to the questions I raised about the definitions an logic of your argument.

Let's not lose sight of your question. You asked about my use of the word arbitrary, remember? My argument states there is a 'materially arbitrary relationship' between a) an arrangement of matter and b) the effect it evokes within a system. Your question was what I meant by the word “arbitrary”. You asked if it simply means “separate” or something else as well. In the course of your comments, you correctly wrote: “It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system". You conceptualized this sentence, and in doing so you clearly identify both the arrangement of matter and its effect. So I picked up exactly where you left off. I asked you to envision putting that arrangement of matter in your shirt pocket until tomorrow, when you will then take it out and use it to evoke its effect. My question was simply if you thought it was possible that the effect - which won't even exist until tomorrow - could also be what is in your pocket today? Or are they necessarily not the same thing? I even added that the effect - which won't even come into existence until tomorrow - will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today. But still you refuse to answer. Having refused to answer a simple question, you now claim that by using this example, I am being "non-responsive" to your question. The reasons for your claim are certainly not obvious, particularly since giving examples is virtually synonymous with giving an explanation, yet you offer no reasoning whatsoever. And given that this is the third time you've declined to answer the question (and participate in understanding the issue), I can correctly assume your interests lie elsewhere. The truth of the matter is rather obvious. You won't answer this simple question because for you to openly admit that nothing exist between these two items except for a relationship, is to give away your ideological farm. The entire remainder of my argument necessarily follows from this simple observation, so consequently, you must not allow it. In the face of a question so simple that a child could answer, you are left with nothing but the adolescent deception that you don't understand the words. And all the while, you vent your spleen with ad hominem attacks. Your rhetorical victory is at hand, and you are welcome to it. Upright BiPed

Joe: Unfortunately for CR darwinism cannot explain tRNA, mRNA, tRNA ligases nor genes with knowledge… Why is that Joe? Could it be that you think all knowledge is justified by authoritative sources? Perhaps you will answer the question I asked UB?

For example, from another comment on another thread…

Specifically, the fundamental flaw in creationism (and its variants) is the same fundamental flaw in pre-enlightenment, authoritative conceptions of human knowledge: its account of how the knowledge in adaptations could be created is either missing, supernatural or illogical. In some cases, it’s the very same theory, in that specific types of knowledge, such as cosmology or moral knowledge, was dictated to early humans by supernatural beings. In other cases, parochial aspects of society, such as the rule of monarchs in governments or the existence of God, are protected by taboos or taken so uncritically for granted that they are not recognized as ideas.

While empiricism is an improvement it still depends on inductivism, so it still shares the same fundamental flaw. Is there something in the above you disagree with? Better yet, wouldn’t such a conception explain objections to Darwinism? And not just any objections, but specific objections that we see here and elsewhere? If someone thought the knowledge of how to build the biosphere could only come from some ultimate authoritative source, would it come as a surprise they would conclud the biosphere cannot be explained without a designer? And if Darwinism were true would, would they not then conclude there could be no knowledge? Everything would simply be meaningless and random and astronomically unlikely, which is a commonly argued strawman of evolutionary theory. Finally, since everything is not random and meaningless, would they not conclude Darwinism must be false? I don’t know about you, but this sounds vaguely familiar.

Does your conception of human knowledge conflict with the above? If so, exactly where did I get it wrong and how do your views differ, in detail? critical rationalist

CR: I’m pointing out that your first premise is a contradiction. Joe: You need to do a better job than just saying so.

I didn't "just say so", I present an argument.

CR: In other words, it’s not necessary for [genetics] to be [reducible] to law for us to explain the concrete biological complexity we observe. Joe: Where did I say it had to be?

Then why do we see some concrete adaptations, instead of other concrete adaptations? Why do they exhibit the specific constraints we observe? How do you explain it?

CR: Are you suggesting the appearance of design cannot be explained? Joe: Where did I suggest that?

you wrote:

Joe: And BTW, ID does not try to answer the “why”. ID tries to answer the question “how did it come to be this way?” ie by design or not.

Why doesn't it? Why do you think artificial ribosomes do not work? Is design some irreducible primitive that cannot be further explained?

CR: What is the appearance of design? Joe: Something that appears designed.

It's unclear why I should even bother responding if you are not going to give a serious answer. What *constitutes* the appearance of design? Why is the same explanation for the origin of a rock found in a field insufficient for the origin of a watch? Is that clear enough for you? critical rationalist

UB: If I did that, would the letters I write exist as rate-dependent structures that can be explained by physcial law, or are they rate-indepedent structures that can only be explained by a relationship established within physical system? History is filled with leaps to universality in evolving systems. These leaps occurred despite indifference to the goal of actually reaching universality. Number and writing systems are just a few examples. Another example is the capacity for any universal computer to simulate any other universal computer. This leap occurs whenever the capacity to perform the necessary repertoire of computations are present in digital systems. This includes using electric switches that can either be on or off, or even cogs that can be in one of 10 possible positions. The purpose of Babbage's Difference Engine, along with all of the stepwise improvements before it, was parochial: to automate laborious calculations, such as those used in engineering, navigation, etc., of which Human computers were notoriously error prone. As such, they only a very implemented a limited repertoire of computations. However Babbage, among others, eventually realized the leap to universality was possible. Had he actually managed to implement his, the Analytic Engine, it would have been the first Universal Turing Machine (UTM). How is this important? Despite being constructed from gears and cogs, Babbage's machine would have been shared the same universality as even modern day universal computers. This includes the ability to run other program that it can, in principle. While this would be impractical due to the vast difference in processing speed and the staggering number of punch cards necessary to store and execute them, this represents a leap to universality in that the behavior of any finite physical object (including some other universal computer) can be simulated with any desired accuracy by another universal computer. Furthermore, all digital computers represent information as discrete physical values. This is in contrast to analogy computers which represents information as variable physical values. The reason why we hardly use analog computers today is because there is no such thing as a universal analog computer. Digital systems can be programed to emulate any of them and outperform them in nearly every application. In addition, computational systems require error correction. Without it, errors would build up in lengthly computations due to variances of component imprecations, temperature changes, random outside influences, etc. Analog computers would diverge so far off the intended path that the results would cease to be remotely useful. The key point here being that knowledge is created by error correcting systems. This includes digital systems for storing that knowledge and operating on it. Analog systems are bound by the above limitations. A replicator is a unit of information which content plays a causal role in whether or not it is copied. When imperfectly copied with some finite probability variants of that replicator will arise. Some will managed to copy themselves. Others will not. New variants might exhibit the ability to copy itself better in the same environment than the original. Or it might exhibit the ability to copy itself better in a new environment. As such, variants of replicators can become better adapted. DNA is also digital in that it stores information as discrete physical values, which allows for error correction. Furthermore, error correction is the means by which the knowledge of how to build adaptations, which is found in the genome, is created. Replicators arise in biology, such as in the information found in germ line cells or the DNA / RNA of viruses. These replicators are called genes. Genes undergo mutation that is random to any specific problem being solved, which produces new variants. Some variants may exhibit the ability to copy themselves better than the original in the current environment. Others may exhibit the ability to copy themselves in a different environment where the original could not. This process can result in different variants to become greatly different over time, resulting in the rise of new species. So, the underlying explanation behind Darwinism is that the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations was created by conjecture, in the form of genetic variation that is random in respect to any particular problem to solve, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. What I've attempted to present in this brief comment is a universal explanation of how all knowledge in general is created. For example, we too have made a leap to universality. In our case, it's a leap that is completely unique to what we consider "people" : we are universal explainers. We can create explanatory knowledge. This includes creating explanations for the appearance of design. It also includes how to build artificial ribosomes that actually work. Being universal explainers, the only thing that would prevent us from doing so is creating the knowledge of how. critical rationalist

And Toronto steps upo the equivocation:

We’re agreed on 1, that evolution CAN do it.

Intelligent design evolution, yes. Your position's blind watchmaker eviolution, no. And your continued equivocation proves that you just don't have a clue.

On the other hand, no one has ever observed the “intelligent designer” actually at work “designing” changes in life.

No one ever observes a programmer checking and correcting their spelling when writing a Word document. IOW your ignorance, while amusing, is not a refutation. Joe

Unfortunately for CR darwinism cannot explain tRNA, mRNA, tRNA ligases nor genes with knowledge... Joe

CR: Take a piece of paper and write the letters “TGCA” on it. […] Now, replace the actual base pairs “TGAC” in an organism’s genome with any of the above. Do you end up with the same effect? UB: If I did that, would the letters I write exist as rate-dependent structures that can be explained by physcial law, or are they rate-indepedent structures that can only be explained by a relationship established within physical system? First, I'll again point out that your argument is parochial in that is appeals to a specific level of reductionism. See comment #163, which you have completely ignored. IOW, it is unclear how would this prevent us from making progress in explaining the concrete biological adaptation in the biospehre, in practice. Second, and for the umpteenth time, it is also parochial in that it implicitly includes the idea that knowledge / information must be justified by some ultimate source. How do you justify whatever arbiter defines this relationship? And how do you justify that, etc? Will you respond with a serious question this time? Despite attempts to point out otherwise, it seems you are unable to recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. As such, I extended my criticism to you in hope you would recognize it. Nor have you responded to my simple, direct questions designed to illustrate it, in detail. Again, you could easily clear this up by differentiating your conception of knowledge from the conception I presented. Then again, I'm not surprised by this in the least, as most ID proponents have enough sense to avoid the question as if it were the plague. UB: CR, you contunue to be unable to properly orient yourself to the discussion. I’ve lost interest in trying to orient you against your will. You seem to be blaming me for the ambiguity of your argument. For example…

1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc).

All of my examples were representations of the actual base pairs TGCA, which are arrangements of matter. And they all evoke an effect in a system, such as vibrations, etc. These representations are arbitrary in the sense that their mapping is an agreement by geneticists as to which alphabetic characters represent each base. However, geneticists could have used some completely different set of letters. We can say the same about the sounds that represent those words, the shapes that make up the letter, etc. It's though this agreement that geneticists can make progress. However, your initial premise seems to assume *all* arrangements of matter that "cause things" represents "something else" in a system. This sounds similar to Aristotle's idea of a "first cause", which would be built into your argument from the start.

2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

What is information? What does it mean to transfer it? Does this take into account the rest of our current, best explanations for phenomena? For example, "Quasar" originally meant quasi-stellar object, which was just a fancy way of saying something that looked a bit like stars. However, not only do we now know Quasars are *not* stars, but we know what they *are*. Quasars were created billions of years ago and billions of years from here when material from the center of a galaxy collapsed towards a super-massive black hole. Intense magnetic fields directed some of the energy of that gravitational collapse, along with some of the matter, back out in the form of tremendous jets that illuminate with the brilliance of roughly a trillion suns. On the other hand, the physics of the human brain could hardly be more different that these jets. Not only does language break down when trying to describe them, but we could not survive in one for even an instant. IOW, the environment in the jet of a Quasar is about as different from our environment as you can get. Yet, these jets happened in precisely such a way that, billions of years later and on the other side of the universe, our brains could accurately describe, model, predict and explain what was happening there, in reality. One physical system, the brain, contains an accurate working model of the other, the quasar. And not just a superficial image of it, although it contains that as well, but an explanatory model, which embodies the same mathematical relationship and the same causal structure. This is knowledge. And knowledge is information that that tends to remain when embedded in some form of media, like human brains. What is the origin of this knowledge? How did it get into our brains? Does this fall under the "transform of information", if not what is it? From what I can grasp from your argument, a "transfer" of "information" occurs though some kind of effect of a "representation". And your example is DNA being transcribed to mRNA, which is then mediated by tRNA molecules within ribosomes. However, all of these examples are local and current, not billions of miles away and billions of years ago. Furthermore, the faithfulness of which the one structure, the brain, resembles the other, the quasar, is increasing over time. This is the *growth* of knowledge. IOW, it's unclear how the information from quasars can get "transferred" into our brains, let alone grow more accurate, via inductivism. Yet, there it is.

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

At this point, given we haven't defined anything in any sort of useful sense, It's unclear how the previous "surely must be" true. Nor how anything logically follows from it.

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

Apparently, the same word "arbitrary" now has two meanings: "not the same thing" and "not reducible to physical law". Or perhaps that is what you originally meant in the first place. Or perhaps you have redefined it, which could be equivocation? I honestly cannot tell. Regardless, this is a recipe for confusion.

5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes.

From the Wikipedia entry on Transfer RNA…

Organisms vary in the number of tRNA genes in their genome. The nematode worm C. elegans, a commonly used model organism in genetics studies, has 29,647 [12] genes in its nuclear genome, of which 620 code for tRNA.[13][14] The budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has 275 tRNA genes in its genome. In the human genome, which according to current estimates has about 21,065 genes [15] in total, there are about 4,421 non-coding RNA genes, which include tRNA genes. There are 22 mitochondrial tRNA genes;[16] 497 nuclear genes encoding cytoplasmic tRNA molecules and there are 324 tRNA-derived putative pseudogenes.[17]

tRNA is controlled by knowledge laden genes. Again, Darwinism's explanation is that this knowledge is genuinely created, rather than having existed in some other form at the outset. There is no infinite regress.

6. It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function.

See above. We have an explanation for this knowledge: it was created by a form of conjecture and refutation, which is an error correcting process.

7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information.

Suddenly, we have something called "recorded information". How does "recording" information differ from transferring information? For example, as a verb, the term recorded indicates the information in question was initially absent, then placed there in some form of storage. Does the recording of information need "protocols" and "representations" and "forms"? Is it also part of a "irreducible complex core", etc?

8. During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function.

See above. At this point, the term arbitrary is used twice without any sort of clarification. Is tRNA "different" that mRNA or is it "not reducible to physical laws"? And now the concept of DNA being "arbitrary" has been introduced as well. The question is, in what sense?

9. From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process is determined by the physical forces of pair bonding. Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

Again, tRNA ligase (aaRS) is controlled by knowledge laden genes. See: “Sticky” Mice Lead to Discovery of New Cause of Neurodegenerative Disease. Darwinism explains this knowledge in that it was created by an error correcting process of conjecture and refutation. Mice with this defect can still reproduce despite exhibiting serious symptoms. critical rationalist

Petrushka is still spitting up equivocations:

Apparently one only has to assert that evolution can’t do it and your argument is complete. No muss, no fuss, no icky research.

1- No one sez "evolution can't do it" as ID is OK with "evolution" doing it. 2- No one has ever observed blind and undirected processes doing it because obvioulsy there is too much muss, fuss and icky research involved. Ya see petrushka YOUR position doesn't have any research to support it. All you can do is baldly assert and throw father time at all issues. And to dr who- the entire planet has missed the part in which your position has any positive evidence to support its claims. "Self-replicating" molecules? You cannot demonstrate blind and undirected processes can construct such a thing. Nylonase? YOU cannot demonstrate blind and undirected processes didit (as opposed to "built-in responses to environmental cues". And BTW RB- you guys can't even account for DNA replication via blind and undirected processes. IOW you guys have nothing and your continued flailing exemplifies that fact. Joe

F/N: Just for record, note that the measurement of info and of FSCI onward, is surveyed here on in the always linked, and the grounding of the log reduced chi metric is explored here on in context (and BTW, this uses a hard atomic resources limit that gets over the pretended objections to Dembski's CSI). These corrective points have been repeatedly highlighted over the past 18 months but the pretended objection is still being advanced that the MG sock puppet objections have merit. That is why -- given some of the tactics that have been used -- I have long since (for cause . . . you don't want to see what has been going on in the fever swamps . . . ) concluded that we are dealing with ruthless, amoral faction-spirited closed-minded objectionism and talking points in service to evolutionary materialism as ideology imposed on science, education and society [cf Plato's warning on that and the self-refuting incoherence of this view here and here], and frankly intended -- on the part of those who do or should know better -- to mislead the naive, not reasonable objections, at least on the part of those who are playing the MG talking points games. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Genuine onlookers, notice the absence of responsiveness and actual dialogue on the part of the objectors, backed up by an evident pretence that communication systems (yes, my always linked that I have been referring to for days to deal with related questions on thermodynamics . . . ) are some strange, ill-understood and dubious entity. All the while, while using the Internet with its TCP/IP protocols on the ISO's OSI 7-layer "layercake" model, instantiated into material entities in accordance with intelligently designed rules and technologies, including those used to set up home wireless networks etc etc. Not to mention, we can discuss the telephone network, the cable TV network, satellite networks, and broadcast radio and TV etc etc etc. For those who genuinely wish to understand, information, comms systems, protocols, codes, digital -- discrete state -- info, etc etc can all be reasonably discussed, but how easy it is for these objectors to instead pose on selective hyperskepticism and make the pretence that that which is well grounded is suspect and dismissible. Because, it points where they would not go. That is why Mung's Q 5 above is so apt: "Attempt to relate the activities you are engaged in and the processes that must take place when you post here on UD to the above questions." KF kairosfocus

onlooker- Perhaps you should buy a dictionary. OR you could look up the definitions on the internet. Joe

onlooker:

You are clearly not acting like someone who has the courage of his convictions and confidence in his argument. In fact, your behavior is indistinguishable from someone who wishes to obfuscate in order to hide the flaws in his argument and avoid any potential challenge to his beliefs.

Nice projection. And if you are referencing keiths, then you have already lost. Joe

Mung,

1. What do you think information is? 2. What do you think a representation is?

I am trying to understand Upright BiPed's argument. In order to do so I need to understand his definitions and premises. My definitions are immaterial and will not help me achieve the goal of understanding his.

I’m willing to grant that you may be a serious enquirer. Let’s find out.

Attempting to distract from Upright BiPed's failure to answer direct, simple questions about his argument by replying with questions is a transparent rhetorical ploy that has no place in a serious discussion. onlooker

Upright BiPed, Should you choose the path of intellectual integrity rather than continued evasion, I am still very interested in understanding your argument. The currently open issues are: Given this definition of "information": D2. Information: a) the form of a thing b) a measured aspect c) a measured quality d) a measured preference - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? Given this statement of one of your premises from your paragraph 3: P2'. If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean? - Please restate this premise using different wording to make your point more clear. Note that all of these questions and issues can be addressed with direct statements, not questions, clarifying your meaning. onlooker

Upright BiPed and Mung, I strongly recommend Ray Dalio's principles as an explanation of the importance of brutal honesty and direct communication in order to root out flaws in our own opinions. onlooker

Upright BiPed, Your 282 is completely non-responsive to the questions I raised about the definitions and logic of your argument. This is an unfortunate pattern in your communication. When Lizzie was posting here trying to get operational definitions for your terms, you blocked her every time it seemed like she was getting close enough to actually test your claims. At The Skeptical Zone you wrote copiously for months, until the other participants managed to work through your nearly impenetrable prose and ask pertinent, direct questions, at which point you ran away. Now here you are evading answering simple, equally direct questions. As keiths noted at TSZ:

When I have a good idea, I actually want other people to understand it. When they ask questions, I answer them. If I see that they misunderstand me, I clarify things. Why wouldn’t I? Why would I try to hide my good idea? You, on the other hand, seem ashamed of your argument and afraid of what might happen if you stated it clearly and explicitly. Instead of clarifying, you obfuscate. Instead of answering questions straightforwardly, you evade them. You complain that others are misrepresenting your position, but when they ask you for correction, you refuse to give it.

You are clearly not acting like someone who has the courage of his convictions and confidence in his argument. In fact, your behavior is indistinguishable from someone who wishes to obfuscate in order to hide the flaws in his argument and avoid any potential challenge to his beliefs. I can't conclude any better than to quote keiths' final paragraph. I'd like to hear your answers to his questions as well as mine.

For you, the entire exercise seems to be more about saving face than it is about communicating your ideas. In fact, you appear to be deliberately avoiding communication precisely in order to save face. Why should anyone take your argument seriously if you are so ashamed of it? Why are you afraid to communicate it in a way that your audience will actually understand?

onlooker

onlooker, 1. What do you think information is? 2. What do you think a representation is? 3. Do you think it is possible to encode information? 4. Do you think it is possible to transmit information from a sender to receiver via a communications channel? Put another way, is it possible to communicate information, and if so, how can that be accomplished? 5. Attempt to relate the activities you are engaged in and the processes that must take place when you post here on UD to the above questions. I'm willing to grant that you may be a serious enquirer. Let's find out. Mung

And one more, for laughs:

How did ID pass the test of knowing what was required for future functionality?

How did ID pass the strawman test? But anyway, as Dr Spetner said back in 1997- "built-in responses to environmental cues".

If as Joe says ID is not anti-evolution, how does the designer stop evolution from changing a working design into something that will not meet his design requirements 1000 years from now?

And another strawman- and a designer could just set limitations on what evolutionary processes could do- and guess what? That is what we actually observe. Joe

What?

What I was shooting for is that ID and evolution are not peer “theories” and you have granted that is the case by not treating them as peers.

ID is not anti-evolution. Why do you equivocate?

If schools should teach the “controversy”, clearly it is NOT a choice between ID and “Darwinism”.

Darwinism is untestable nonsense and ID has withstood all tests. No choice... Joe

I would like to clear up one bit of a confused poster- confused on how science does things:

If ID claims “evolution CANNOT therefore ID”, why can’t the evolution argument be, “ID CANNOT therefore NOT ID”?

1- ID does NOT claim “evolution CANNOT therefore ID” 2- It cannot be “ID CANNOT therefore NOT ID” because design doesn't even get considered until necessity and chance, NOT ID, have already tried and failed. THAT is the whole point of parsimony, Toronto. And your other strawmen prove that you are totally clueless wrt science. Is that what you were shooting for? Really? Joe

onlooker:

How exactly can information be measured?

By counting the number of bits it contains. But that is irrelevant

Does it have standard units?

Yes, the bit, but again irrelevant

Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

Just the one used by everybody on the planet every day of their lives. The one you use in order to communicate will suffice. Ya see onlooker it was questions such as those that exposed your agenda. Just sayin'... Joe

I’m pointing out that your first premise is a contradiction.

You need to do a better job than just saying so.

In other words, it’s not necessary for genetic to be reeducate to law for us to explain the concrete biological complexity we observe.

Where did I say it had to be?

Are you suggesting the appearance of design cannot be explained?

Where did I suggest that?

What is the appearance of design?

Something that appears designed. Joe

UB: Maybe this from 251 will help, in light of actual on the ground comms stuff:

1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc). [--> I would add, digital symbols and analogue modulation of wave forms through AM, FM, Phase Mod and pulse mod] 2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter. [--> Comms systems are about the imposition of modulations to represent information; which also happens to be true in the world of life. To go from transmitrer to receiver the codes, mod systems, protocols etc have to be given physical instantiation, E.G AM IS BASED ON MATHEMATICS OF MULTIPLYING SINUSOIDS AND CREATION OF SIDE BANDS AS A RESULT, BUT IS EFFECTED USING ELECTRONICS TECHNIQUES IN CIRCUITS. (And I will let the accidental caps lock stand . . . ] 3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. [--> Without the contingency to make one thing stand for something else by analogue or code, we cannot communicate] And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing). 4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law). 5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. [--> We design comms systems, and the protocols or conventions involved are not driven by deterministic physical forces or by chance but by intelligent choice] In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes. [--> For a receiver to work, there must be a transmitter] 6. It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function. [--> Transmitters and receivers are planned together to match under protocols] 7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process [ --> TX and RX] ; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. [--> The impressed design] The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. [--> Yes] They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information. Next time you use a PC on the web using TCP/IP (= “Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP)”), think about it. Same for the Global System for Mobile Telephony (GSM) etc.

KF kairosfocus

From 262

Onlooker: “It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system.” UB: I now see you left the term “information” in your text after all, so I can only assume you knew what you meant when you wrote it. But if that is the wrong assumption, then you can tell me what you meant, and how you conceptualized it could be transferred by using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. ... Armed with the proper conceptualization as you have demonstrated, the question before you remains. I assure you, answering this question will help you understand “necessarily arbitrary”.

So can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing? Upright BiPed

Mung,

ok, I think I am beginning to understand the problem here. Upright BiPed needs to set it out step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step ….

Absolutely. I refer you to what I quoted from keiths in comment 238:

When I have a good idea, I actually want other people to understand it. When they ask questions, I answer them. If I see that they misunderstand me, I clarify things. Why wouldn’t I? Why would I try to hide my good idea?

I am interested in understanding Upright BiPed's argument detailed in the original post to this thread. I have questions that prevent me from understanding it. Why do you think it is unreasonable to ask for clarification? If you feel that the argument as stated is perfectly clear, I invite you to answer the questions I have posed to Upright BiPed. If you can add some clarity and Upright BiPed agrees with your clarifications, we might be able to make progress more quickly. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Ah yes, I remember now. You were confused by words like “information” and “representations”

Please re-read what I wrote. I specifically asked you to clarify what you meant by "information" because I found your definition lacking in clarity. That definition again, for your convenience, is: D2. Information: a) the form of a thing b) a measured aspect c) a measured quality d) a measured preference My outstanding questions are: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? I removed "representation" from P1'''. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. because it is an unnecessary term that has the potential to cause confusion based on the differences between your definition and standard usage. All this was clearly stated in my previous comments.

I can give you a hint Onlooker,

I would prefer direct answers to my specific questions. For example, your item 3 is:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

In my attempt to understand what you are saying here, I extracted premise 2:

P2. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

and I proposed this restatement:

P2'. If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers.

I have at least twice now noted that I'm still not clear what you mean by "necessarily arbitrary". If you are interested in making your argument understandable, please either precisely define that term or modify P2' to eliminate those words while retaining your meaning.

The representation cannot logically be the effect it evokes, and this is supported by observation.

While I still don't see what that has to do with the questions I have posed about your argument, that depends on your definitions of "representation" and "effect". If it turns out that this is important to clarifying your meaning, I'm happy to discuss this further. At the moment, though, I am unable to parse your paragraph 3 without direct answers to the open questions in my last few comments. onlooker

Hello KF, I will have to put some thought into that. Obviously, I think it is incomplete as it relates to the material exchange of information and how that might serve to define it. Thank you for asking. Upright BiPed

Joe, It appears a recap is necessary…

Joe: Artificial ribosomes do not function and partially artificial ribosomes barely function. That show tell us that ribosomes are not reducible to matter and energy, ie how they function is not determined by physical law. CR: Are ribosomes prohibited by the laws of physics? Joe: No, but neither is my car, house nor computer. And blind and undirected physical processes cannot produce those either. CR: My point is, If something isn’t prohibited by the laws of physics, then the only thing that could prevent us from doing it is *knowing how*. This includes adapting matter into artificial ribosomes. Joe: So what? THAT does NOT eman blind and undirected processes didit.

I'm pointing out that your first premise is a contradiction. That's what. From an earlier comment…

For example, in terms of fundamental physics, we encounter events of extreme complexity on a daily basis. If you place a pot of water on a stove, every computer working on the planet could not solve the equations to predict exactly what all those water molecules will do. Even if they could, we’d need to determine their initial state, the state of all external influences, etc., which is also an intractable task. However, if what we really care about is making tea, enough of this complexly resolves itself into hight-level simplify that allows us to do just that. We can predict how long water will take to boil with reasonable accuracy by knowing it’s overall mass, the power of the heating element, etc. If we want more accuracy, we may need additional information. However this too exists in the form of relatively high-level phenomena which is also intractable. So, some kinds of phenomena can be explained in terms of themselves alone – without direct reference to anything at the atomic level. In other words, they are quasi-autonomous (nearly self-contained). Resolution into explicably at a higher level is emergence.

In other words, it's not necessary for genetic to be reeducate to law for us to explain the concrete biological complexity we observe. Are you suggesting the appearance of design cannot be explained? What is the appearance of design? critical rationalist

CR

Take a piece of paper and write the letters “TGCA” on it.

If I did that, would the letters I write exist as rate-dependent structures that can be explained by physcial law, or are they rate-indepedent structures that can only be explained by a relationship established within physical system?. - - - - - - - From comment #30 above: UB "I believe your perspective is made clear here. You are talking about making arbitrary choices with regard to a program you write on top of a symbol system. I am talking about the symbol system itself. The fact that the letter “A” can be represented by “1000001” is arbitrary – not inexorable law." - - - - - - - CR, you contunue to be unable to properly orient yourself to the discussion. I've lost interest in trying to orient you against your will. Upright BiPed

UB, Take a piece of paper and write the letters "TGCA" on it. Take the PDF instructions for drawing the glyphs "TGCA" and encode them into a strand of DNA (use Craig Venter's encoding scheme if you like) . Speak the words "TGCA" and record the vibrations generated. Arrange carbon atoms in the shape of the characters "TGAC" using an electron force microscope. Now, replace the actual base pairs "TGAC" in an organism's genome with any of the above. Do you end up with the same effect? critical rationalist

Ribosomes are constructed every time a cell divides.

So what? THAT does NOT eman blind and undirected processes didit.

Are you suggesting some intelligent designer directly intervening to construct them?

Nice strawman. Does a programmer have to intervene for Word to do spellchecking?

First ,again with the stramwan. Darwinism isn’t merely chance and necessity.

Yes it is- but what else do YOU think it is? And BTW, ID does not try to answer the "why". ID tries to answer the question "how did it come to be this way?" ie by design or not.

IOW, if you assume the designer is inexplicable, yet is actually a good explanation, then why isn’t “Zeus rules here” the best, parsimonious explanation for falling apples and orbiting planets, along with everything else?

I see you don't understand parsimony. Joe

Joe: are you actually reading my comment before replying?

CR: Except that is the misconception I keep pointing out. Apparently, you’re confused about the underlying explanation behind Darwinism, which is that the knowledge of how to create biological adaptations is genuinely created. Joe: There isn’t such a thing- all darwinism has is someone’s imagination, not evidence.

Even if that were true, (which I'm not suggesting it is) your response is a non-sequitur - that is unless you are denying that Darwinism as a *theory* with an underlying explanation exists.

Joe: Artificial ribosomes do not function and partially artificial ribosomes barely function. That show tell us that ribosomes are not reducible to matter and energy, ie how they function is not determined by physical law. CR: Are ribosomes prohibited by the laws of physics? Joe: No, but neither is my car, house nor computer. And blind and undirected physical processes cannot produce those either.

Yet another non-sequitur. Ribosomes are constructed every time a cell divides. Are you suggesting some intelligent designer directly intervening to construct them? My point is, If something isn't prohibited by the laws of physics, then the only thing that could prevent us from doing it is *knowing how*. This includes adapting matter into artificial ribosomes. Joe: The limitation is parsimony. Meaning we only invoke a designer as required by the evidence. And that means if necessity and/ or chance cannot account for it AND it meets some criteria, we infer it was designed. First ,again with the stramwan. Darwinism isn't merely chance and necessity. That's like saying someone defeated by a chess program was defeated by electrons and silicon. Second, "That's just what a deigned must have wanted" doesn't explain why we end up with one biological adaptation rather than another. It doesn't actually explain the question at hand. Third, I'd again ask: are you actually reading my comments?

All logically conceivable transformations of matter can be classified in the following three ways: transformations that are prohibited by the laws of physics, spontaneous transformations (such as the formation of stars) or transformations which are possible when the requisite knowledge of how to perform them are present. Every conceivable transformation of matter is either impossible because of the laws of physics or achievable if the right knowledge is present. This dichotomy is entailed in the scientific world view. If there was some transformation of matter that was not possible regardless of how much knowledge was brought to bare, this would be a testable regularity in nature. That is, we would predict whenever that transformation was attempted, it would fail to occur. This itself would be a law of physics, which would be a contradiction. Furthermore, if we really do reside in a finite bubble of explicably, which exists in an island in a sea of of inexplicability, the inside of this bubble cannot be explicable either. This is because the inside is supposedly dependent what occurs in this inexplicable realm. Any assumption that the world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than “Zeus rules” there. And, given the dependency above (this realm supposedly effects us), this also means there can be no better expiation that “Zeus rules” inside this bubble as well. In other words, our everyday experience in this bubble would only appear explicable if we carefully refrain from asking specific questions. Note this bares a strong resemblance to a pre-scientific perspective with its distinction between an Earth designed for human beings and a heaven that is beyond human comprehension.

IOW, if you assume the designer is inexplicable, yet is actually a good explanation, then why isn't "Zeus rules here" the best, parsimonious explanation for falling apples and orbiting planets, along with everything else? A simple, abstract designer with no limitations would be simpler "theory" than anything else we could possibly conceive of. And, according to you, such a designer is necessary for anything to exist. If we wanted to incorporate into our world view an imaginary realm of which we have no evidence and can be no evidence, then we need not have bothered do abandon the myths of antiquity. And we wouldn't have. But we did. critical rationalist

F/N: The UD glossary defn of info: ____________ >>Information — Wikipedia, with some reorganization, is apt: “ . . that which would be communicated by a message if it were sent from a sender to a receiver capable of understanding [--> including, acting on (including per algorithmic programs such as a branch on condition, etc)] the message . . . . In terms of data, it can be defined as a collection of facts [i.e. as represented or sensed in some format] from which conclusions may be drawn [and on which decisions and actions may be taken].” >> ___________ Good enough for you UB? KF kairosfocus

...and that is the reason for the acrimonious excuses that the argument is "just too confusing to understand", as well as the constant definition derby, obfuscation and ad hominem attacks. Materialism simply sucks for materialist. Upright BiPed

"...understanding the consequences of your answer..." That is exactly correct. Once you allow that information is the form of a thing instantiated in an arrangement of matter, i.e. in a material medium, then you have allowed that a rate-independent representation exists, and the entire remainder of my argument falls out from that - because it physically has to. Upright BiPed

And for those how might be interested, look what I stumbled upon: Elizabeth Liddle:

Yes, and, if you remember, I retracted my claim.

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/science-and-freethinking/#comment-408199 my oh my what began with such a bang ended with such a whimper Mung

onlooker:

Responding to questions with questions is deliberately evasive.

Except when you do it. Mung

onlooker:

I just explained that without more clarity around your definition of “information” the question is not well formed and hence unanswerable.

IOW, I don't wantto answer it, because I understand the consequences of my answer, therefore I will assert without any supporting argument that the question lacks sufficient clarity (I can't answer it the way I want to) and therefore it is unanswerable. Now, let's put to the test the assertion that the question is unanswerable. "Do you think an arrangement of matter that contains information (i.e. the form of a thing) as a consequence of its arrangement can also be the effect it evokes within the system?" Well, gee, no. That would be illogical. Mung

CR:

...the knowledge of how to create biological adaptations is genuinely created.

Created by who or what? And stored where? And transmitted how? And what is a non-genuine creation? And what's required to get to the point where biological adaptations are even possible? What is an adaptation, after all? You're still not even in the same discussion, CR. No wonder there's so much confusion. Mung

ok, I think I am beginning to understand the problem here. Upright BiPed needs to set it out step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step-by-step .... Mung

Ah well... I'm out. Upright BiPed

I can give you a hint Onlooker, The representation cannot logically be the effect it evokes, and this is supported by observation. And if they are not the same thing, then the relationship between them is necessarily arbitrary from a physical perspective (regardless of how that relationship originated). If you do not like that word, you can use whatever word you like. I have seen such described as "immaterial", or "non-material", or "physico-dynamically inert", etc, etc. You can also use the word Dr Liddle suggested - "materially dissociated". It matters not, to me. Upright BiPed

CR: Bob was apt: "Who de cap fit, let 'im wear it." I spoke to a common phenomenon with abundant examples in point starting with the no 1 "new atheist." And I spoke in a context with excellent antecedents ranging back to Plato [since say Paul is liable to cause even louder eruptions in various fever swamps, let us start with Plato . . . ], whom I cited. KF kairosfocus

Onlooker, Ah yes, I remember now. You were confused by words like “information” and “representations” so you skillfully worked them out of your revision and came up with something you could completely understand. That was:

“It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system.”

Oh wait, I now see you left the term “information” in your text after all, so I can only assume you knew what you meant when you wrote it. But if that is the wrong assumption, then you can tell me what you meant, and how you conceptualized it could be transferred by using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Clearly, the level to which you understood the word when you conceptualized it correctly in this sentence, is more than sufficient for the discussion. You successfully conceptualized that information could be transferred by an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system - and that is precisely what the current question involves. Armed with the proper conceptualization as you have demonstrated, the question before you remains. I assure you, answering this question will help you understand “necessarily arbitrary”. And don’t worry about being asked a question in order to understand a concept. People have been doing that from time immemorial. To label that as "evasive" is to cast an aspersion on human communication that can't be supported. Do you think that the arrangement of matter in your pocket today can also be the effect that won’t exist until tomorrow? Upright BiPed

D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences

How do nucleotide sequences evoke an effect within a system? The system uses nucleotide sequences to evoke an effect.

Responding to questions with questions is deliberately evasive.

Not really. Sometimes that is the way to go so that the argument doesn't go off on some senseless tangent. And it is both strange and very telling that only his opponents have difficulty understanding UB's argument. It's as if they really don't have any interest in understanding it but would rather engage in a type of filibuster so that every gets confused about what the argument is. All that when all they have to do is step up and produce some positive evidence that their proposed mechanisms can account for something like transcription and translation. So that too is very telling-> that they just don't do such a thing. Joe

Upright BiPed,

I asked the question in order for you to understand. So if you are serious about understanding, then I ask you again to answer the question.

I just explained that without more clarity around your definition of "information" the question is not well formed and hence unanswerable. Responding to questions with questions is deliberately evasive. Do you want people to understand your argument or not? I'm investing the time to do so; I would appreciate a good faith effort to communicate in return. onlooker

UB: Isn’t it amazing, you took this incoherent statement: [snip] …and this incoherent statement: [snip] …and very confidently produced this statement without becoming confused: ”It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. “ - - - - - - Onlooker: Indeed. - - - - - - UB: So now that you know you have an arrangement of matter that contains information (i.e. a representation of the form of a thing) which will evoke an effect within a system. Also, you have already isolated three things: 1) an arrangement to evoke the effect, 2) a system where the effect will be evoked, and 3) the effect itself. Since you understand this, there are a few other things that you can easily understand. For instance, you know that it is not merely the presence of the matter that evokes the effect, but is instead the arrangement of that matter. In other words, it is specifically the arrangement that will cause the constraint in the system. Do you think an arrangement of matter that contains information (i.e. the form of a thing) as a consequence of its arrangement can also be the effect it evokes within the system? Or are they necessarily separate things? - - - - - - UB: So the question I posed is simple: Do you think the arrangement of matter that contains the information (i.e. the form of a thing) can also be the effect it evokes within the system? Or are they necessarily two separate things? You might look at the issue like this: Let’s say you take the genetic symbol C-T-A and put it in your pocket for safe keeping. And tomorrow, you will take it out and run it through a ribosome where it will evoke its specified effect. You can now ask yourself a simple question of logic; can a thing that will not even exist until tomorrow also be in my pocket today? And if it helps you to answer this question, you might also remember that the effect that is produced tomorrow will actually contain none of the matter that is in your pocket today. So are they the same thing, or are they two necessarily discrete things? - - - - - - Onlooker: I’m still not clear what you mean by “necessarily arbitrary”

I asked the question in order for you to understand. So if you are serious about understanding, then I ask you again to answer the question. Upright BiPed

It appears that Onlooker only wanted to “undertand my argument” to the extent that he could run his mouth. If the discussion is returned to logic and observables (as it was in 241, 243, and 252) suddenly the conversation is not worth pursuing. How totally surprising is that?

Hmm.

No swearing. Try to be polite. Try to be tolerant. Try to keep belligerence and sarcasm in check. No one is perfect. We’ll try to be forgiving.

While I am unable to be on UD 24x7, I assure you that I will respond to you more promptly than you have responded to the still outstanding questions in your threads at The Skeptical Zone. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker, (if you decide to return)

I'm glad you're so eager to continue the discussion that you start to miss me after less than 18 hours. Unfortunately, work occasionally gets in the way of blog discussions.

By your own words, you now clearly understand that you have an arrangement of matter that contains information (i.e. a representation of the form of a thing) which will evoke an effect within a system. And you’ve also isolated that there is: a) an arrangement which evokes an effect, b) a system where the effect will be evoked, and c) the effect itself.

Well, let's summarize what I've managed to get out of your argument above thus far: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences D2. Information: a) the form of a thing b) a measured aspect c) a measured quality d) a measured preference D3. Arbitrary: ? P1'''. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. I'm still hoping for some clarification of D2 and definitely need a precise formulation for D3 to understand your argument to this point.

So the question I posed is simple: Do you think the arrangement of matter that contains the information (i.e. the form of a thing) can also be the effect it evokes within the system? Or are they necessarily two separate things?

Is this supposed to be in response to my questions about your paragraph 3? I extracted a provisional P2 from that as follows:

P2. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

I then proposed this restatement (see comment 228):

P2'. If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers.

and I noted that I'm still not clear what you mean by "necessarily arbitrary". (I now ask again if you can either precisely define it or modify P2' to eliminate those words while still maintaining your meaning?) Given those open questions, I don't think I can yet answer your question, nor do I understand how it answers mine. Perhaps if you define how you are using "information" more clearly than "the form of a thing" I would be able to do so. If I understand your working definition, I may be able to come up with an example of "information" being an "effect" or it may simply become clear that they are two different concepts. I'm still quite interested in understanding your full argument. I do hope you'll assist me in doing so by answering my questions clearly and directly. onlooker

It appears that Onlooker only wanted to "undertand my argument" to the extent that he could run his mouth. If the discussion is returned to logic and observables (as it was in 241, 243, and 252) suddenly the conversation is not worth pursuing. How totally surprising is that? Upright BiPed

critical rationalist- The limitation is parsimony. Meaning we only invoke a designer as required by the evidence. And that means if necessity and/ or chance cannot account for it AND it meets some criteria, we infer it was designed. Joe

CR: Rather, I said an abstract designer with no defined limitations is a bad explanation, and went on to explain why, in detail. An example from a comment on another thread...

I would add two more possibilities. 07. There are a number of designers that are equally powerful, but each had different goals. The resulting biosphere is a strategic compromise. 08. The designers are equally powerful twins. However, one is perfectly good and the other is perfectly evil. The resulting biosphere is a standoff in which neither ended up with what they intended. I’d also note that, assuming the terms “good” and “evil” can be used to determine what a designs a designer would or would not produce, either of these are better theories than an abstract designer with no defined limitations as there are more ways they can be found to be in error. To use an example, even the statement that “all swans are white”, which is found in conflict with observations and therefore false as a whole, is better than merely “all swans have a color” as the former has more ways to be found wrong. All theories usually contains errors to some degree. In my example, the error is “all”, but it does bring us closer to the truth than merely “all swans have a color” because it encompasses the theory that there are *white* swans. Popper called this property Verisimilitude. I’m also assuming that one actually attempts to criticize the theory that there was a committee of designers, rather than one. For example, If one uncritically accepts there is only one designer, this is the equivalent of saying “all swans have a color” since you are intentionally choosing not to criticize it. However, in comparison to my additions, there are even better theories for the origin of the biosphere that have significantly more informational content (and therefore more significantly more ways to be found in error) and greater verisimilitude. For example, it’s logically possible one or more designers intentionally went out of its way to obscure its role in designing biological organisms. Even if this was the case, Darwinism would still be the best explanation because it encompasses the theory that the biosphere appears *as if* adaptations of organisms were created by genetic variation that was random to any specific problem to solve and natural selection. IOW, the theory encompasses a specific means by which the designer set out to obscure it’s role, which could also be found false as compared to some other specific means of obscuring its role. As such, this too represents a better theory than merely an abstract designer with no defined limitations. This is one example of what I mean when I say the current crop of ID is a bad explanation.

critical rationalist

KF: The hostility to the notion of a designer is the clue, the motive in the end is emotional and psychological not logical. Can you point out where I'm hostile to the notion of a designer? Rather, I said an abstract designer with no defined limitations is a bad explanation, and went on to explain why, in detail. Furthermore, designers adapt matter into things like microscopes, cars, etc. We have an explanation for how the knowledge they use is created. So, it not that I'm ignoring evidence about designers or hostile to them - It's what we do know about designers which makes an abstract deigned with no defined limitations a bad explanation. Nor am I hostile to inductivism. I'm merely pointing out that no one has managed to present a "principle of induction" that actually works, in practice. However, feel free to present one that actually does work. Please be specific. critical rationalist

Onlooker, (if you decide to return) By your own words, you now clearly understand that you have an arrangement of matter that contains information (i.e. a representation of the form of a thing) which will evoke an effect within a system. And you’ve also isolated that there is: a) an arrangement which evokes an effect, b) a system where the effect will be evoked, and c) the effect itself. So the question I posed is simple: Do you think the arrangement of matter that contains the information (i.e. the form of a thing) can also be the effect it evokes within the system? Or are they necessarily two separate things? You might look at the issue like this: Let’s say you take the genetic symbol C-T-A and put it in your pocket for safe keeping. And tomorrow, you will take it out and run it through a ribosome where it will evoke its specified effect. You can now ask yourself a simple question of logic; can a thing that will not even exist until tomorrow also be in my pocket today? And if it helps you to answer this question, you might also remember that the effect that is produced tomorrow will actually contain none of the matter that is in your pocket today. So are they the same thing, or are they two necessarily discrete things? Upright BiPed

Joe: The hostility to the notion of a designer is the clue, the motive in the end is emotional and psychological not logical. That is why, when confronted with the obvious, that science reconstructs what we do not see through how its traces parallel the signs that are characteristic of the causal processes we do see, there is a cognitive lock-out. The logic of induction on empirically reliable sign, per observation of same, is lost on those too angry at even the possible shadow of God, to hear. All we can do is point out the absurd inconsistency of accepting a story on the past of the world purporting to be on the same -- even in absence of clear current demonstration of the powers of claimed causes and their characteristic signs -- even while rejecting that which DOES have that support, because it does not fit the favoured ideological narrative and agenda. Get a clue, folks: if even isochrons give trouble, and if we have never seen chance variation and differential reproductive success create a novel body plan feature -- loss of function does not count -- but we are ever so eager to use the timelines and evolutionary just so stories spun on such thin ice, but we are UN-willing to accept that the only observed and analytically plausible source of FSCO/I is IDOW -- a new acronym: intelligently directed organising work -- ten that tells us all we need to know. This is not about warrant it is about support for an ideology of a priori evolutionary materialism that leads to radical relativisation of knowledge, reasoning and morals. Indeed, we are right back up against what Plato warned on 2350 years ago, in The Laws, Bk X:

Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny. )] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them . . .

Such is patently true and unanswerable, so there is no answer, just the pretence that nothing significant has been said. It would be amusing if it were not so sad and so fraught with hazard for our poor mortally wounded and bleeding out civilisation. And so, when we look back at what UB had to say, we see why there is ever so much evasion, side-tracking and the like. UB is patently right, so right that what he says is routine in telcomms systems: we encode, modulate and transmit then receive, demodulate and decode messages instantiated by being impressed into states of matter organised into comms systems and using comms protocols, codes and systems all the time. Indeed the whole Internet, plus radio plus Television and telephone are all about that. Let's clip, to remind ourselves:

1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc). [--> I would add, digital symbols and analogue modulation of wave forms through AM, FM, Phase Mod and pulse mod] 2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter. [--> Comms systems are about the imposition of modulations to represent information; which also happens to be true in the world of life. To go from transmitrer to receiver the codes, mod systems, protocols etc have to be given physical instantiation, E.G AM IS BASED ON MATHEMATICS OF MULTIPLYING SINUSOIDS AND CREATION OF SIDE BANDS AS A RESULT, BUT IS EFFECTED USING ELECTRONICS TECHNIQUES IN CIRCUITS. (And I will let the accidental caps lock stand . . . ] 3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. [--> Without the contingency to make one thing stand for something else by analogue or code, we cannot communicate] And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing). 4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law). 5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. [--> We design comms systems, and the protocols or conventions involved are not driven by deterministic physical forces or by chance but by intelligent choice] In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes. [--> For a receiver to work, there must be a transmitter] 6. It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function. [--> Transmitters and receivers are planned together to match under protocols] 7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process [ --> TX and RX] ; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. [--> The impressed design] The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. [--> Yes] They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information.

Next time you use a PC on the web using TCP/IP (= "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP)"), think about it. Same for the Global System for Mobile Telephony (GSM) etc. If it were not so sadly revealing of something gone very wrong, it would be laughable to see the attempts to evade the obvious. KF kairosfocus

critical rationalist:

Except that is the misconception I keep pointing out. Apparently, you’re confused about the underlying explanation behind Darwinism, which is that the knowledge of how to create biological adaptations is genuinely created.

There isn't such a thing- all darwinism has is someone's imagination, not evidence.

Are ribosomes prohibited by the laws of physics?

No, but neither is my car, house nor computer. And blind and undirected physical processes cannot produce those either. Joe

@joe:#247 Joe: Arbitrary would mean not determined by physical law. Darwinism can only explain that which is determined by physical law. Except that is the misconception I keep pointing out. Apparently, you're confused about the underlying explanation behind Darwinism, which is that the knowledge of how to create biological adaptations is genuinely created. Joe: Artificial ribosomes do not function and partially artificial ribosomes barely function. That show tell us that ribosomes are not reducible to matter and energy, ie how they function is not determined by physical law. Apparently, you missed what I wrote here....

All logically conceivable transformations of matter can be classified in the following three ways: transformations that are prohibited by the laws of physics, spontaneous transformations (such as the formation of stars) or transformations which are possible when the requisite knowledge of how to perform them are present. So, every conceivable transformation of matter is either impossible because of the laws of physics or achievable if the right knowledge is present. This dichotomy is entailed in the scientific world view. If there was some transformation of matter that was not possible regardless of how much knowledge was brought to bare, this would be a testable regularity in nature. That is, we would predict whenever that transformation was attempted, it would fail to occur. This itself would be a law of physics, which would be a contradiction.

Are ribosomes prohibited by the laws of physics? critical rationalist

And keiths is still clueless:

You want to conclude that a Designer is responsible for the complexity of life. You know about mutations and natural selection, you know that they’ve been observed in nature, and you know that you can’t argue against them without utterly destroying your scientific credibility.

Earth to keiths- natural selection, which includes mutations, has never neen observed to do anything of consequence. That means all YOU have is a bald declaration- ie no evidence.

But if you concede that they happen, then what’s to stop the evilutionists from arguing that they can happen over and over, leading to complex adaptations — and rendering God superfluous to the process?

Hellooooo?!! "That which can be asserted without evidnce can be dismissed without evidence"- C Hitchens- one of YOUR guys. Ya see keiths- YOU are so wedded to YOUR dogma, so unwilling to doubt it that you will just say anything. Joe

critical rationalist- Arbitrary would mean not determined by physical law. Darwinism can only explain that which is determined by physical law. Artificial ribosomes do not function and partially artificial ribosomes barely function. That show tell us that ribosomes are not reducible to matter and energy, ie how they function is not determined by physical law. Codons do not become their respectove amino acid- they represent it. And that takes knowledge that blind molecules just do not have. Programmed parts could do it though. Joe

UB, Again, in an attempt to clarify your argument, is the definition of "arbitrary" in your argument a problem for darwinism? If so, why? Please be specific. critical rationalist

@UB re: 240 UB: a) to show sufficient reason; reasonable UB: Do you promote your personal assumptions without sufficient reason? Given that I've clarified this at length in comment 180, it's unclear why should I consider this a serious question either. Are you suggesting there is no significant differences in the attitudes presented there? Is this the part where you, as the justificationist, stop asking serious questions? If so, I'm surprised it took this long. UB: > logical fallacy > an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it. UB: Your comments are related to me, not the material argument being presented. Again, when I attempted to clarify what you meant by arbitrary, you wrote…

It is only a “problem” to the extent that evolutionary theory (specifically Darwinian theory) is fully dependent on the arrangements of matter being described here, which I have referred to as “representations” and “protocols”. It is their material existence that is being observed and presented (by extension) as the necessary material conditions for evolution to occur. Therefore evolution cannot be the source of their existence.

So, apparently, your use of arbitrary in your argument excludes the creation of knowledge as a high-level explanation for the specific adaptation of raw materials into proteins, etc, you are confused about the underlying explanation behind Darwinism (knowledge of how perform the transformations was created by a form of C&R) or none of the above. We create knowledge by guessing then testing our guesses for errors. My questions are designed to do just that. Is there a particular reason why you are unwilling to stick your neck out to the degree that we can actually make progress in regards to your argument and your views? critical rationalist

I'll return in a short while. Upright BiPed

Onlooker, So now that you know you have an arrangement of matter that contains information (i.e. a representation of the form of a thing) which will evoke an effect within a system. Also, you have already isolated three things: 1) an arrangement to evoke the effect, 2) a system where the effect will be evoked, and 3) the effect itself. Since you understand this, there are a few other things that you can easily understand. For instance, you know that it is not merely the presence of the matter that evokes the effect, but is instead the arrangement of that matter. In other words, it is specifically the arrangement that will cause the constraint in the system. Do you think an arrangement of matter that contains information (i.e. the form of a thing) as a consequence of its arrangement* can also be the effect it evokes within the system? Or are they necessarily separate things? * The phrase “as a consequence of its arrangement” should not be difficult to understand. Think of it in these terms: The key fits the lock as a consequence of its arrangement – i.e. the matter contains information as a consequence of its arrangement. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Isn’t it amazing, you took this incoherent statement: [snip] …and this incoherent statement: [snip] …and very confidently produced this statement without becoming confused:

It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system.

Indeed. I then proceeded to your next numbered paragraph:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

Here I noted that you have a very important undefined term:

D3. Arbitrary: ? This word seems important to your argument, so a precise definition is required. Does it simply mean "separate"? What does the qualifier "materially" add to "arbitrary"?

You have thus far not deigned to precisely define that word as you use it in your argument. I further noted that my understanding of your argument started to break down here:

P2. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

I find that there are too many concepts packed into this sentence for me to parse it and I asked further questions that you also have not answered. Being able to tease out your meaning from the simplest of your numbered paragraphs, with your assistance, doesn't mean that all of your paragraphs are understandable. I hope you will choose to answer the questions I raised so that I can understand paragraphs 3 and 4, with the eventual goal of understanding your entire argument. onlooker

Onlooker, Isn’t it amazing, you took this incoherent statement:

1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc).

…and this incoherent statement:

2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

…and very confidently produced this statement without becoming confused:

It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system.

So now you know that you have an arrangement of matter that contains information (i.e. a representation of the form of a thing) which will evoke an effect within a system. You clearly understood what a representation was, what an arrangement of matter was, etc, etc. So we can assume you understood what you wrote when you wrote it, as evidenced by your methodical approach in creating your revision without confusion. Is that correct? Upright BiPed

CR,

justify verb a) to show sufficient reason; reasonable

Do you promote your personal assumptions without sufficient reason?

ad hominem : (Latin, "to the man") > logical fallacy > an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.

Your comments are related to me, not the material argument being presented. Upright BiPed

@ UB Again, you could easily clear this up by simply pointing differentiating your conception of human knowledge from the following...

Specifically, the fundamental flaw in creationism (and its variants) is the same fundamental flaw in pre-enlightenment, authoritative conceptions of human knowledge: its account of how the knowledge in adaptations could be created is either missing, supernatural or illogical. In some cases, it’s the very same theory, in that specific types of knowledge, such as cosmology or moral knowledge, was dictated to early humans by supernatural beings. In other cases, parochial aspects of society, such as the rule of monarchs in governments or the existence of God, are protected by taboos or taken so uncritically for granted that they are not recognized as ideas.

Also, do you not share the same dichotomy between designers with knowledge and designer-less theories in which there is no knowledge and everything is merely random? Why *this* particular dichotomy?

If someone thought the knowledge of how to build the biosphere could only come from some ultimate authoritative source, would it come as a surprise they would conclud the biosphere cannot be explained without a designer? And if Darwinism were true would, would they not then conclude there could be no knowledge? Everything would simply be meaningless and random and astronomically unlikely, which is a commonly argued strawman of evolutionary theory. Finally, since everything is not random and meaningless, would they not conclude Darwinism must be false?

If my assessment is incorrect, you should have no problem pointing out where I got it wrong and how your view differs, in detail. critical rationalist

Upright BiPed,

I have no desire to play definition derby with an ideologue. This argument has already been in front of specialists in relevant fields and not a single one of them asked me what I meant by anything I said. When I say that, I am not saying that I didn’t have to re-explain much, or not very much – I am saying I didn’t have to change a single word in order to be understood.

Who are these specialists? Are they available to answer questions about your argument?

So when an ideologue rolls up and overplays his position by taking every opportunity to position the argument as incomprehensible, I rightly call bullshit on it. That’s a classic defensive maneuver which is intentionally irresolvable for the purposes of generating rhetoric. It’s the intellectual carcass from defending a weak position.

I pointed out exactly where I found your prose confusing. I asked very specific questions. The fact is that your argument as written above is completely incoherent. If you disagree, I challenge you to find anyone who can summarize it with the clarity that keiths demonstrated without getting significantly more information from you.

You have two choices. You can either demonstrate that the conclusions don’t follow from the premises or that the premises are false – or, you can slide back and satisfy yourself with a rhetorical victory.

I have a third choice -- I'll simply point out that your prose is impenetrable while your refusal to answer simple, direct questions speaks volumes. Speaking of keiths, he raised a similar point at The Skeptical Zone:

Every time I summarized your argument, I a) asked you whether my summary was accurate, and b) invited you to amend my summary if it was not. You refused each time, even when others (who also found your prose impenetrable) repeatedly asked you to do so. Why is that? If your argument is as strong as you claim, why do you work so hard to prevent your audience from understanding it? When I have a good idea, I actually want other people to understand it. When they ask questions, I answer them. If I see that they misunderstand me, I clarify things. Why wouldn’t I? Why would I try to hide my good idea? You, on the other hand, seem ashamed of your argument and afraid of what might happen if you stated it clearly and explicitly. Instead of clarifying, you obfuscate. Instead of answering questions straightforwardly, you evade them. You complain that others are misrepresenting your position, but when they ask you for correction, you refuse to give it. Then you declare victory, saying that no one has defeated your argument! For you, the entire exercise seems to be more about saving face than it is about communicating your ideas. In fact, you appear to be deliberately avoiding communication precisely in order to save face. Why should anyone take your argument seriously if you are so ashamed of it? Why are you afraid to communicate it in a way that your audience will actually understand?

I would be very interested in hearing your answers to those questions. onlooker

UB: Have you justified these assumptions of me, or is this one of those positions you hold open because “no position can be positively justified”? Perhaps it’s even an “untrue unbelief [that is] unjustified because of the non-existence of good reasons”. Which is it, exactly? Given that I've pointed out justification is impossible, why would I assume that is a serious question? Furthermore, you seem to be implying my criticism isn't valid unless it is justified. However, as I've pointed out before, "idea x isn't justified" is a bad criticism, as it's applicable to all ideas. Of course, feel free to explain how justification *is* possible, in practice. Please be specific. critical rationalist

Here’s the deal Onlooker. I have no desire to play definition derby with an ideologue. This argument has already been in front of specialists in relevant fields and not a single one of them asked me what I meant by anything I said. When I say that, I am not saying that I didn’t have to re-explain much, or not very much – I am saying I didn’t have to change a single word in order to be understood. So when an ideologue rolls up and overplays his position by taking every opportunity to position the argument as incomprehensible, I rightly call bullshit on it. That’s a classic defensive maneuver which is intentionally irresolvable for the purposes of generating rhetoric. It’s the intellectual carcass from defending a weak position. I’ll use my time otherwise. You have two choices. You can either demonstrate that the conclusions don’t follow from the premises or that the premises are false – or, you can slide back and satisfy yourself with a rhetorical victory. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Why are you interested in understanding my argument?

Because I don't. ;-) I've got a bit more free time now than when you were active at The Skeptical Zone, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask you directly about the questions I had then. As it stands, I can't tell what you're trying to say and I don't see how it supports ID even if your conclusion is coherent and correct. I suspect that there are other (unnamed) onlookers in the same boat. Are you interested in making yourself better understood, and thereby promoting ID, or not? onlooker

Onlooker,

If you aren’t interested in having me understand your argument, please just say so.

Why are you interested in understanding my argument? Upright BiPed

CR, you failed to answer my question:

Have you justified these assumptions of me, or is this one of those positions you hold open because “no position can be positively justified”? Perhaps it’s even an “untrue unbelief [that is] unjustified because of the non-existence of good reasons”. Which is it, exactly?

Upright BiPed

Correction: As for this committing the fallacy of ad hominem, are you suggesting *all* theories of knowledge were developed before the enlightenment? Are you suggesting the great majority of [pre-enlightenment] conceptions were not non-authoritative and non-justifcationist in nature? Are you suggesting there are no significant differences between those theories and post-enlightenment theories of knowledge, such as Popper’s? critical rationalist

UB: So you have concluded that I am a justificationist who has misconceptions about Popper, who doesn’t recognize that my conception of human knowledge is an idea that can be criticized, so I should remember what Popper said about Darwinism. Which is yet another strawman. Again my criticism it that your argument is parochial. What do I mean by that? It means an argument that has a limited or narrow outlook or scope. For example, you could be a Larmarckian that (in addition to "use" and "disuse") includes the idea there is some universal law that mandates organisms become more complex and that we only still see less complex organisms because a continuous stream of them are being spontaneously generated (As Lamarck did). This too includes a form of justificationism in that it assumes the knowledge of how to improve organisms was already present at the outset in some law of physics. Again, this is counter to Darwinism, in which the knowledge of how to build adaptations is genuinely created. If you prefer a more formal approach, take the following argument.. P01. John has a favorite ice cream flavor. P02. John has a favorite ice cream shop. P03. John just ordered his favorite ice cream flavor at his favorite ice cream shop. C01. John just ordered vanilla ice cream. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? No. Why not? Because there is an implicit premise that John's favorite ice cream shop only serves one flavor of ice cream: vanilla. Furthermore, all one needs to do is point out John's favorite ice cream shop offered him significantly more than one flavor. If you are suggesting there is something unique Darwinism, (the day John bought his favorite ice cream flavor they were out of every flavor but vanilla), then I've already addressed this in that you appear to be confused about the underling explanation behind Darwinism itself, which is a higher-level explanation. As for this committing the fallacy of ad hominem, are you suggesting *all* theories of knowledge were developed before the enlightenment? Are you suggesting the great majority of post-enlightenment conceptions were not non-authoritative and non-justifcationist in nature? Are you suggesting there are no significant differences between those theories and post-enlightenment theories of knowledge, such as Popper's? Furthermore, are you suggesting there are no conflicts between your expressed views and common misconceptions of Popper - especially in regards to justiifcationism? IOW, your response of "ad hominem" further suggests you do not recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. Again, was there something in my brief outline of authoritative, justiifcaitonist conceptions of human knowledge that you disagreed with? If so, please be specific. critical rationalist

@UB RE: 224... Again, it's unclear what you mean by "arbitrary". When attempts to clarify this failed, I asked what consequences it would have for Darwinism in hope it would shed much need light on the term. You replied

It is only a “problem” to the extent that evolutionary theory (specifically Darwinian theory) is fully dependent on the arrangements of matter being described here, which I have referred to as “representations” and “protocols”. It is their material existence that is being observed and presented (by extension) as the necessary material conditions for evolution to occur. Therefore evolution cannot be the source of their existence.

I then pointed out …

Is the conclusion is that existence of abstractions requires some ultimate arbiter? If so, this represents justificationism and is parochial. It also assumes that all high-level explanations should be reductionist in nature. However, this simply isn’t the case. Nor is it necessary or even desirable to do so for us to actually make progress.,

So, some kinds of phenomena can be explained in terms of themselves alone – without direct reference to anything at the atomic level. In other words, they are quasi-autonomous (nearly self-contained). Resolution into explicably at a higher level is emergence.

Rather than address this, your response can be summarized as …

My argument doesn’t even mention Darwinism.

If by "mention Darwinism" you mean nothing more than contain the word "Darwinism" then it seems I've satisfied your objection to my criticism by removing the word "Darwinism" and replacing it with "all explanatory theorires" On the other hand, as pointed out in 200 [not 203], Darwinism is an explanatory theory. If by "mention Darwinism" you mean Darwinism the explanatory theory, then your argument does refer it by nature of Darwinism being an explanatory theory of the specific biological complexity we observe. This includes an explanation for how the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, which is found in the genome, was created. From your ongoing conversation with Clavidivs, you wrote:

To make this a non-trivial argument you must recompose it so that this ‘conclusion’ is instead a premise, combined with another premise establishing the significance of semiotic states.

However, you've ignored the following from my 210 [originally 202]...

Justification is impossible. For example, conclusions of an argument are not proven unless the premises are proven, which is impossible. You either have to assume that you've proven them, which isn't' the same as actually proving them, or you are faced with an infinite regress.

One could just as well object on the ground it was necessary to make that premise a conclusion, combined with another premise establishing whatever established the the significance of semiotic states, etc. critical rationalist

CLAVDIVS,

All this is irrelevant to your argument, as we have just agreed. Since it is irrelevant, then you cannot treat the irreducibility of the arrangement C-T-A as one of your premises.

I don’t treat it as a premise - and you know it. This comment is disconnected from reality.

If you think the irreducibility of the arrangement C-T-A is important to your argument, please say so. Then we can discuss whether it can be granted or whether it needs to be defended.

Establishing the irreducibility of symbol structures is not a requirement to make the observations contained in my argument, just as I have said from the start. However, it would certainly come into play in establishing the type of mechanism capable of creating the system.

But please don’t continue bringing it up and then saying it’s irrelevant.

Clavs, did you not ask me to “bring it up”? Did you not say that you wanted a categorical distinction for the irreducibility of genetics to physical law?

Not at all. I granted that conclusion only for the purpose of discussing that, even if that’s true, it appears to be either trivial or tautological.

Merriam-Webster defines “trivial” as commonplace and ordinary. So by your estimation, an argument which establishes that the TRI in genetics is accomplished by the use of arbitrary representations and systematic operational rules is commonplace and ordinary. Or more precisely, that view of genetics is commonplace and ordinary. If that is true, then as a logical consequence, such an argument would receive uncontroversial agreement, right? The question then becomes; is your estimation of triviality actually reflected in the real world or not? I can assure you that it is not.

No. It is your conclusion that is trivial; namely, that “the transfer of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state, and therefore its origin will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state.”

Again, if the conclusion that ‘genetic information transfer is semiotic’ is trivial, then it is commonplace and ordinary, correct? But that is not the case, is it? Isn’t it a fact that such a conclusion is vehemently resisted in the real world? And as for the requirement of a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state, that would be a logical consequence of a non-trivial conclusion, would it not? Or does it suit your sensibilities more to refer to it as a trivial consequence of a vehemently resisted (non-trivial) conclusion?

The concept “semiotic state” as applied to genetics in your argument is not trivial in my view, and, yes, its significance needs to be established. You have raised some points in favour of that but I believe that discussion is premature whilst the conclusion appears trivial.

Physics has demonstrated that symbolic representations are not reducible to the physical laws that govern their make-up. This is not merely raising “a point in favour” of establishing the significance of semiosis; it is a physical reality. Yet in your view, the recognition of this physical reality can be viewed as “premature” until we resolve the question of whether we should refer to the need for a semiotic-capable mechanism as a trivial observation or a logical consequence.

To make your argument non-trivial your conclusion has to be something other than “system X has property Y, therefore at some point in its history it required the introduction of property Y.”

Does this view of triviality stand up if the property Y is vehemently resisted as a requirement of system X? If not, is it the system X, or the property Y, or the claim of triviality that is unsupportable?

I do agree that biology exhibits semiotic states, at the level of human consciousness, for example. But I am not persuaded this is established at a biomolecular level. However, my mind is open to the possibility.

Thank you for your input CLAVDIVS. The semiotic process at the heart of genetic TRI was functioning to create living systems long before we human beings appeared on this planet. This is logically supported by the fact that a) we are here to observe it as a consequence of its operation, b) we have no evidence of there being any other system, and c) it is conceptually not possible to transfer recorded information by any other method. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

My first question is for clarification of this definition. How exactly can information be measured? Does it have standard units? Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

A measured content of information is of no consequence here, only the material conditions of the transfer.

Why do you use the word "measured" in your definition then? D2. Information: a) the form of a thing b) a measured aspect c) a measured quality d) a measured preference Nothing in your definition of "information" mentions "material conditions of the transfer", so I'm confused by your response. Could you please clarify this definition further or replace it with a standard definition of "information" that matches yours?

Is my restatement of this premise accurate?

Yes, I have stated it in an abbreviated form as well, but only after I’ve explained it. For instance, among other things, you’ve left out the disambiguation of “information”, i.e. the form of a thing, as well as the qualifier “recorded information” to distinguish it from “physical information”. Otherwise, I’m happy you were able to discern the data, given that the text you so carefully revised came from nothing more than a conversational blog post, not a formal paper.

My restatement of your premise comes directly from your item 2:

2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

I don't see the terms "recorded information" or "physical information" in that. If you consider my restatement accurate, though, this isn't an issue.

D3. Arbitrary: ? This word seems important to your argument, so a precise definition is required. Does it simply mean “separate”? What does the qualifier “materially” add to “arbitrary”?

Did you read the text after you cut and pasted it?

Indeed I did. Here it is again, as I quoted it:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

The only definition of "arbitrary" I can get from that is that you seem to be using it as a synonym for "separate" in one sentence. That seems incomplete, at best, given how important the term appears to be to your argument. Could you please define it precisely?

P2. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. This is where my understanding starts to break down. There are too many concepts packed into this sentence for me to parse it. By “representation of form” do you mean “information” (I am guessing at that based on D1 and D2)?

Yes, “representation of form” refers to those things you cut out from the previous sentences. Information is the ‘form of a thing’ instantiated in matter by means of a representation.

I didn't cut anything. I have quoted your numbered paragraphs in full. The phrase "instantiated in matter by means of a representation" is unnecessarily verbose and potentially confusing. As I noted previously, you already defined "representation" as "an arrangement of matter", so the whole phrase is redundant. In any case, based on your response the best restatement of your premise that I can come up with is: P2'. If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers. Is this close to what you mean? I am basing this in part on the next bit of your response:

What does “consequence of its own material arrangement” mean? What does “necessarily arbitrary to” mean

This is what you missed when you said you couldn’t understand that a) for the arrangement of one thing to b) represent the form of another thing, two things will be needed. That means they won’t be the same thing. I know in the information age it’s sometimes hard to imagine a distinction between a medium and information, but that is exactly what this passage is about.

You didn't directly answer my question regarding the meaning of "consequence of its own material arrangement", so I dropped that out of my restatement of your premise. I'm still not entirely clear by about what you mean by "necessarily arbitrary" and "two things will be needed". Could you please either precisely define "necessarily arbitrary" or modify P2' to eliminate those words while still making your point?

I’m too lost at step 3 to get anything out of step 4, but what do you mean by “material component” as opposed to “arbitrary component”? What do you mean by “reducible to physical law”?

If the making an tangible distinction between a material medium (which might contain information), and the information itself (contained within material medium), causes a conceptual problem for you; then I am simply not going to be of any help to you. Sorry.

I am simply trying to understand your argument. The best way I know of to do so is to ask questions, then restate my understanding in my own words and confirm with you that my restatement reflects what you meant. In this case you have only further confused me by not answering my questions about the terms you are using and by adding in what appear to be assertions or definitions regarding information, representation of information, and physical laws. I'd like to figure out what you're talking about, but I need good faith responses from you. If you aren't interested in having me understand your argument, please just say so. onlooker

Upright BiPed @ 226

CLAVDIVS @ 183: That’s fine. I understand you are stipulating that at no point in your argument do you rely upon either the irreducibility or the reducibility of any elements of genetics to physical laws. UB @ 189: Good, you now understand that my argument is not dependent on a reduction to physical law. CLAVDIVS @ 214:Nor is it dependent upon an irreducibility to physical law – let’s not forget that part. UB @ 226: Hardly forgetting it, I’ve repeated it several times already.

Great, now we are crystal clear on this point.

UB @ 226: I told you that my argument was not dependent on such knowledge, but I also highlighted the fact that the existence of the arrangement C-T-A (as a local discrete causal structure within protein synthesis) is not reducible to physical law, and happens to be the very source of biological function. Unhindered by that material fact, you then asked me to go ahead and grant a priori that the system and its mechanism of origin are reducible anyway.

All this is irrelevant to your argument, as we have just agreed. Since it is irrelevant, then you cannot treat the irreducibility of the arrangement C-T-A as one of your premises. If you think the irreducibility of the arrangement C-T-A is important to your argument, please say so. Then we can discuss whether it can be granted or whether it needs to be defended. But please don't continue bringing it up and then saying it's irrelevant.

CLAVDIVS @ 183: Let’s acknowledge, just for this discussion, your conclusion that genetics exhibits semiotic states, and therefore the origin of genetics requires a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state. So what? CLAVDIVS @ 214: Again, so what? UB @ 226: Is this your agreement that the genetic system demonstrates a semiotic state and its mechanism of origin will require the ability to establish that semiotic state?

Not at all. I granted that conclusion only for the purpose of discussing that, even if that's true, it appears to be either trivial or tautological.

UB @ 226: So the semiotic state in protein synthesis is a trivial observation, which needs something else in order to establish its significance?

No. It is your conclusion that is trivial; namely, that "the transfer of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state, and therefore its origin will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state." In other words, if system X has property Y, therefore – however system X came about – at some point it required the introduction of property Y. The concept "semiotic state" as applied to genetics in your argument is not trivial in my view, and, yes, its significance needs to be established. You have raised some points in favour of that but I believe that discussion is premature whilst the conclusion appears trivial. To make your argument non-trivial your conclusion has to be something other than "system X has property Y, therefore at some point in its history it required the introduction of property Y."

UB @ 226: And if I should – as you say – recast my conclusion as a premise, then I take it that you agree with that premise?

No - see above. Right now I am just critiquing your conclusion as trivial. I do agree that biology exhibits semiotic states, at the level of human consciousness, for example. But I am not persuaded this is established at a biomolecular level. However, my mind is open to the possibility. Cheers CLAVDIVS

CLAVDIVS,

Nor is it dependent upon an irreducibility to physical law – let’s not forget that part.

Hardly forgetting it, I’ve repeated it several times already. You stated that you had no problem understanding what 'materially arbitrary' meant, but you wanted me to satisfactorily establish that genetics was “categorically” not reducible to physical law. I told you that my argument was not dependent on such knowledge, but I also highlighted the fact that the existence of the arrangement C-T-A (as a local discrete causal structure within protein synthesis) is not reducible to physical law, and happens to be the very source of biological function. Unhindered by that material fact, you then asked me to go ahead and grant a priori that the system and its mechanism of origin are reducible anyway. And the stated reason for this request (as should be obvious to any rational observer) is because I already said it was irrelevant to my argument. Hello? Quite frankly Clavd, your comments show every indication that you might have thought one thing, then found out another, and now it doesn’t matter.

Again, so what?

Is this your agreement that the genetic system demonstrates a semiotic state and its mechanism of origin will require the ability to establish that semiotic state?

Nature is rife with apparently arbitrary configurations of matter, where we do not understand the causes that bring about that particular configuration rather than another one. Why does an electron have a rest energy of 5.11 MeV? Why do quadrupeds have four legs and not six?

Configurations of matter are not the issue here, nor is the source of physical law. Configurations of matter which are arbitrary to the unambiguous function they produce in a formal system (as described in the argument) – that is what is at issue.

Either the evidence is not available to us or, if it is, we have not figured out its significance.

The evidence of what, exactly? That the thing conforms to a prior assumption? Is that the evidence we are missing?

To base any kind of argument on this is a classic appeal to ignorance, and is fallacious – as I have been pointing out.

Let us say there is a system we wanted to understand, and we were capable of observing its operation. Would it then be a fallacy to discount the evidence of its operation which we’ve already observed (and know exists), in favor of evidence that we haven’t observed (and don’t know exists) because the evidence we’ve observed doesn’t conform to someone’s prior assumption? And if we choose to discount it entirely, do we then create yet another fallacy by insulating our prior assumptions from any test to the contrary? And would it not also be a fallacy to mis-label valid observations as “ignorance” in order to substantiate doing so? What do you think?

All this conclusion states is that system X has property Y, therefore – however system X came about – at some point it required the introduction of property Y.

Basically correct.

This is at best trivial, at worst tautological.

If you think it's tautological for someone to state that the sufficient and necessary conditions of a thing’s existence must exist in order for that thing to exist, then so be it. As far as being trivial, I take that as your tacit agreement that the genetic system is semiotic and its origin will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state.

To make this a non-trivial argument you must recompose it so that this ‘conclusion’ is instead a premise, combined with another premise establishing the significance of semiotic states.

So the semiotic state in protein synthesis is a trivial observation, which needs something else in order to establish its significance? And if I should - as you say - recast my conclusion as a premise, then I take it that you agree with that premise? Upright BiPed

CR,

Most people do not realize they are justificationists. And there are many misconceptions regarding Popper’s universal theory of the growth of knowledge because people do not recognize their own conceptions of human knowledge as as an idea that would be subject to criticism. For example, in 011 you seem to consider yourself a Popperan. However, Popper explicitly rejected justificationism and elaborated as to why at length in several books. Having been a justificationist myself, I held several misconceptions about Popper. And those are just the ones I’ve discovered to date. One of Popper’s key points is that the grown of knowledge occurs when we correct errors. And what did Popper say about Darwinism and design?

So you have concluded that I am a justificationist who has misconceptions about Popper, who doesn’t recognize that my conception of human knowledge is an idea that can be criticized, so I should remember what Popper said about Darwinism. And reading your other statements, it seems you’ve also concluded that I have a pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge, who only objects to Darwinism because I think the biosphere can only come about by an authoritative source, or there can’t be any knowledge, er something. That’s a whole lot of individual distinctions. May I ask a question? Have you justified these assumptions of me, or is this one of those positions you hold open because “no position can be positively justified”? Perhaps it’s even an “untrue unbelief [that is] unjustified because of the non-existence of good reasons”. Which is it, exactly? One other question, are you familiar with the fallacy of ad hominem? How about Roseman's theory of appraisal? Upright BiPed

CR

While I’ve already clarified it at 203…. it’s really quite simple: your argument implicitly assumes [explanatory theories] should be reducible to some mechanical system. As such, it’s parochial in nature. My criticism doesn’t use the word “Darwinism”

What? Your criticism as stated in #191: It’s really quite simple: your argument implicitly assumes Darwinism should be reducible to some mechanical system. Then your edited "clarification": it’s really quite simple: your argument implicitly assumes [explanatory theories] should be reducible to some mechanical system. And then your follow-on remark: My criticism doesn’t use the word “Darwinism” Upright BiPed

Onlooker, These are your questions:

My first question is for clarification of this definition. How exactly can information be measured? Does it have standard units? Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

A measured content of information is of no consequence here, only the material conditions of the transfer.

Is my restatement of this premise accurate?

Yes, I have stated it in an abbreviated form as well, but only after I’ve explained it. For instance, among other things, you’ve left out the disambiguation of “information”, i.e. the form of a thing, as well as the qualifier “recorded information” to distinguish it from “physical information”. Otherwise, I’m happy you were able to discern the data, given that the text you so carefully revised came from nothing more than a conversational blog post, not a formal paper.

D3. Arbitrary: ? This word seems important to your argument, so a precise definition is required. Does it simply mean “separate”? What does the qualifier “materially” add to “arbitrary”?

Did you read the text after you cut and pasted it?

P2. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. This is where my understanding starts to break down. There are too many concepts packed into this sentence for me to parse it. By “representation of form” do you mean “information” (I am guessing at that based on D1 and D2)?

Yes, “representation of form” refers to those things you cut out from the previous sentences. Information is the ‘form of a thing’ instantiated in matter by means of a representation.

What does “consequence of its own material arrangement” mean? What does “necessarily arbitrary to” mean

This is what you missed when you said you couldn’t understand that a) for the arrangement of one thing to b) represent the form of another thing, two things will be needed. That means they won’t be the same thing. I know in the information age it’s sometimes hard to imagine a distinction between a medium and information, but that is exactly what this passage is about.

I’m too lost at step 3 to get anything out of step 4, but what do you mean by “material component” as opposed to “arbitrary component”? What do you mean by “reducible to physical law”?

If the making an tangible distinction between a material medium (which might contain information), and the information itself (contained within material medium), causes a conceptual problem for you; then I am simply not going to be of any help to you. Sorry. Upright BiPed

UB: I was motivated by my pre-enlightenment authoritative concept of knowledge. So clearly, I need to become a exponent of critical rationalism. Strawman. I'm contrasting the two as a means to point out why your argument is parochial. And, just so I'm clear, are you denying that you hold a pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge? For example, from another comment on another thread...

Specifically, the fundamental flaw in creationism (and its variants) is the same fundamental flaw in pre-enlightenment, authoritative conceptions of human knowledge: its account of how the knowledge in adaptations could be created is either missing, supernatural or illogical. In some cases, it’s the very same theory, in that specific types of knowledge, such as cosmology or moral knowledge, was dictated to early humans by supernatural beings. In other cases, parochial aspects of society, such as the rule of monarchs in governments or the existence of God, are protected by taboos or taken so uncritically for granted that they are not recognized as ideas.

While empiricism is an improvement it still depends on inductivism, so it still shares the same fundamental flaw. Is there something in the above you disagree with? Better yet, wouldn't such a conception explain objections to Darwinism? And not just any objections, but specific objections that we see here and elsewhere? If someone thought the knowledge of how to build the biosphere could only come from some ultimate authoritative source, would it come as a surprise they would conclud the biosphere cannot be explained without a designer? And if Darwinism were true would, would they not then conclude there could be no knowledge? Everything would simply be meaningless and random and astronomically unlikely, which is a commonly argued strawman of evolutionary theory. Finally, since everything is not random and meaningless, would they not conclude Darwinism must be false? I don't know about you, but this sounds vaguely familiar. However, this is parochial in that it doesn't take into account our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge. critical rationalist

vu- :) vu who? Joe

Okay, let me try to analyze the first few steps of your argument.

It's like deja vue all over again (cue twightlight zone music) Joe

Upright BiPed, Okay, let me try to analyze the first few steps of your argument.

1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc).

I'll try to put this in something like the form used by keiths. This line item becomes ('D' for "definition"): D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences

2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

D2. Information: a) the form of a thing b) a measured aspect c) a measured quality d) a measured preference My first question is for clarification of this definition. How exactly can information be measured? Does it have standard units? Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? ('P' for "premise"): P1. It is not logically possible to transfer information in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter. This seems redundant because you've already defined "representation" as an arrangement of matter. That means we should be able to simplify P1: P1'. It is not logically possible to transfer information in a material universe without using a representation. I'm not sure of the need for the "in a material universe" qualifier. That seems to unnecessarily involve discussions of dualism and other topics unrelated to the matter at hand. We can simplify P1 even further: P1''. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using a representation. Finally, the word "representation" has baggage associated with it from normal, everyday usage. P1 might be more clear like this: P1'''. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Is my restatement of this premise accurate?

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

D3. Arbitrary: ? This word seems important to your argument, so a precise definition is required. Does it simply mean "separate"? What does the qualifier "materially" add to "arbitrary"? P2. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. This is where my understanding starts to break down. There are too many concepts packed into this sentence for me to parse it. By "representation of form" do you mean "information" (I am guessing at that based on D1 and D2)? What does "consequence of its own material arrangement" mean? What does "necessarily arbitrary to" mean (this may be answered when D3 is more detailed)?

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

I'm too lost at step 3 to get anything out of step 4, but what do you mean by "material component" as opposed to "arbitrary component"? What do you mean by "reducible to physical law"? I think you've got several more definitions and premises residing in steps 3 and 4. It would be most helpful to extricate them and make them explicit. onlooker

UB: My critique is that you haven’t harnessed any novel manner of knowing. When you come out from being up in your head, you’ve transcended nothing. Where did I say it was novel? Most people do not realize they are justificatioinists. And there are many misconceptions regarding Popper's universal theory of the growth of knowledge because people do not recognize their own conceptions of human knowledge as as an idea that would be subject to criticism. For example, in 011 you seem to consider yourself a Popperan. However, Popper explicitly rejected justificationism and elaborated as to why at length in several books. Having been a justificationist myself, I held several misconceptions about Popper. And those are just the ones I've discovered to date. One of Popper's key points is that the grown of knowledge occurs when we correct errors. And what did Popper say about Darwinism and design?

[Darwin's theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached. [Popper 1976, p. 172]

[What Did Karl Popper Really Say About Evolution?] An abstract designer with no defined limitations doesn't stick its neck out in a way that allows significant criticism - in the sense that allows us to make progress. critical rationalist

CR, Your 202 did not received a facepalm from me because of the formatting errors. I was motivated by my pre-enlightenment authoritative concept of knowledge. So clearly, I need to become a exponent of critical rationalism. Perhaps I'll have time this weekend. Upright BiPed

CR: “Idea X is not justified” is a bad criticism, as it applies to all ideas. Mung: Perhaps it is a bad criticism, but not for the reason you give. I'm not following you. "Idea X is not justified" does not apply to all ideas? Mung: I can’t help but notice how you insulate your own ideas from criticism. Not following you here either. How does pointing out it's impossible to justify any idea, including my own, represent insulating my ideas from criticism? critical rationalist

CR to UB: It’s really quite simple: your argument implicitly assumes Darwinism should be reducible to some mechanical system. As such, it’s parochial in nature. UB to CR: My argument doesn’t even mention Darwinism. CR to UB: While it’s not limited to just biology, darwinism is an explanation the origin of the knowledge … the assumption that Darwinism … needs something capable of “establishing a semiotic state” … that would be the source of that knowledge represents a gross misunderstanding of Darwinism. While I've already clarified it at 203.... it’s really quite simple: your argument implicitly assumes [explanatory theories] should be reducible to some mechanical system. As such, it’s parochial in nature. My criticism doesn't use the word "Darwinism" critical rationalist

Upright BiPed @ 189

CLAVDIVS @ 183: That’s fine. I understand you are stipulating that at no point in your argument do you rely upon either the irreducibility or the reducibility of any elements of genetics to physical laws. UB @ 189: Good, you now understand that my argument is not dependent on a reduction to physical law.

Nor is it dependent upon an irreducibility to physical law - let's not forget that part.

UB @ 189: When I pointed out that physicists can demonstrate that symbol structures (like nucleic triplets) are indeed not reducible to physical law, you shrank from that observation by minimizing it as being unsatisfactory to you.

As you say, all this is irrelevant as you've stipulated that your argument at no point relies upon the reducibility or irreducibility of anything in genetics to physical laws.

CLAVDIVS @ 183: Let’s acknowledge, just for this discussion, your conclusion that genetics exhibits semiotic states, and therefore the origin of genetics requires a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state ... So what? UB @ 189:You mean…”other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show?” If you are a Richard Dawkins pumping out best-sellers – waxing over the effervescent elegance of the Darwinian mechanism to the throngs of non-curious patrons of scientific imagination – you sure don’t want to start talking about the critical requirements for that mechanism to exist, particularly if those requirements include arbitrary representations and transfer protocols.

Again, so what? Nature is rife with apparently arbitrary configurations of matter, where we do not understand the causes that bring about that particular configuration rather than another one. Why does an electron have a rest energy of 5.11 MeV? Why do quadrupeds have four legs and not six? Either the evidence is not available to us or, if it is, we have not figured out its significance. To base any kind of argument on this is a classic appeal to ignorance, and is fallacious - as I have been pointing out. In any case, the conclusion of your argument - which you took pains to spell out @ 181 - does not even mention the significance of genetic semiotics or its apparently arbitrary nature. Here it is again:

UB @ 181: The conclusion of the argument is that the transfer of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state, and therefore its origin will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state.

All this conclusion states is that system X has property Y, therefore - however system X came about - at some point it required the introduction of property Y. This is at best trivial, at worst tautological. To make this a non-trivial argument you must recompose it so that this 'conclusion' is instead a premise, combined with another premise establishing the significance of semiotic states. At this stage I concur with Onlooker @ 209 that it is quite unclear to me what your argument is supposed to demonstrate. I urge you to recompose it into syllogistic form to make this clear. Cheers CLAVDIVS

onlooker- Start with this:

1.In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?) 2.If 1 is true, then is it even conceivably possible to transfer that information without a second arrangement of matter (a protocol) to establish the relationship between representation and what it represents? (how could such a relationship be established in any other way?) 3.If 1 and 2 are true, then is it even conceivably possible to functionally transfer information without the irreducibly complex system of these two arrangements of matter (representations and protocols) in operation?

Joe

Onlooker, my argument is at the top of this page. You can indicate what words you are having a hard time with, and I'll be happy to explain. Upright BiPed

UB: CR at 202,facepalm The blogging software I'm used to using doesn't allow posts with unclosed tags and lets you delete posts. Wordpress does neither. While it's not hard to figure out where the formatting errors are, I've reposed it in case you're having difficulty. critical rationalist

Reposting to fix formatting errors: CR: The second of your bolded text states: “According to the critical rationalists, the exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests.” CR: I see that you present this tidbit of wisdom as the hood ornament of your movement. But the remainder of humanity has pretty much been doing this all along. We don’t typically step in front of speeding buses, because we’ve calculated what outcomes from that action are more ‘quite likely’ than others. All in all, it’s not a particularly new way of viewing the world. Which is a strawman. Specifically, the sections I quoted begins not with one but three attitudes.

In the light of the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism, we can discern three attitudes towards positions: relativism, “true belief” and critical rationalism

Are you suggesting there is no difference between these attitudes as presented? Furthermore, I bolded the parts of the third attitude, which points out you are projecting your problem, by virtue of your pre-enlightenment, authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge, on me. From the quote…

True believers embrace justificationism. They insist that some positions are better than others though they accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for an belief. They accept that we make our choice regardless of reason: “Here I stand!”. Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other dogmatists because they share the theory of justificationism.

Justification is impossible. For example, conclusions of an argument are not proven unless the premises are proven, which is impossible. You either have to assume that you've proven them, which isn't' the same as actually proving them, or you are faced with an infinite regress. Critical Rationalism is neither justificationism or relativism, as outlined in the excerpt from the paper which can be found in it's entirety here. So, your argument is parochial in that is assumes a dichotomy of either relativism or dogmatism / “true belief". From the Wikipedia entry on Critical Rationalism….

Critical rationalism rejects the classical position that knowledge is justified true belief; it instead holds the exact opposite: That, in general, knowledge is unjustified untrue unbelief. It is unjustified because of the non-existence of good reasons. It is untrue, because it usually contains errors that sometimes remain unnoticed for hundreds of years. And it is not belief either, because scientific knowledge, or the knowledge needed to build a plane, is contained in no single person's mind. It is only available as the content of books.

William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way. According to Bartley, some justificationists are positive about this mistake. They are naïve rationalists, and thinking that their knowledge can indeed be founded, in principle, it may be deemed certain to some degree, and rational. Other justificationists are negative about these mistakes. They are epistemological relativists, and think (rightly, according to the critical rationalist) that you cannot find knowledge, that there is no source of epistemological absolutism. But they conclude (wrongly, according to the critical rationalist) that there is therefore no rationality, and no objective distinction to be made between the true and the false. By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought.

critical rationalist

Upright BiPed,

Apparently my comment at #188 has provoked Keith (at TSZ) into challenging me once again to respond to his revised version of my argument. This is a revision where he first adds language to my argument that appears nowhere in the original, and then he victoriously attacks the very language he’s added.

I noticed keiths' TSZ post earlier today and was hoping you'd respond here or there. I think you deserve a lot of credit for discussing your argument in what, despite Lizzie's best efforts, could easily be considered a hostile venue. Even when people are on their best behavior, trying to answer points from a dozen or more different individuals without anyone assisting you is difficult. Leaving aside the observations and logic of your argument, though, I must confess to having considerable difficulty following it, both when you were commenting at TSZ and here at UD. Please don't take this criticism as an insult, it is entirely possible that the fault is completely mine, but your prose is simply too dense for me to easily analyze. For that reason alone, I for one would very much appreciate it if you would take the time to respond to keiths' challenge and either correct his summary or provide an equally clear and concise one. Whether or not one agrees with keiths, his breakdown of definitions, premises, conclusions, and overall logical flow is remarkably direct. If you could provide something similar, with explicit definitions of all important terms, short sentences with few if any conjunctions, and clearly labeled premises and conclusions, it would go a long way to making your argument more understandable. You've obviously spent a lot of time developing this argument. With just a little more effort you could make it available to a much broader audience. I hope you will consider doing so. onlooker

CR at 203

“Idea X is not justified” is a bad criticism, as it applies to all ideas.

“Idea X is not justified” is not my critique of your input here. My critique is that you haven’t harnessed any novel manner of knowing. When you come out from being up in your head, you’ve transcended nothing. And no offense, but I personally find the conversation boring. Upright BiPed

CR at 202, facepalm Upright BiPed

CR at 200,

CR to UB: It’s really quite simple: your argument implicitly assumes Darwinism should be reducible to some mechanical system. As such, it’s parochial in nature. UB to CR: My argument doesn’t even mention Darwinism. CR to UB: While it’s not limited to just biology, darwinism is an explanation the origin of the knowledge … the assumption that Darwinism … needs something capable of “establishing a semiotic state” … that would be the source of that knowledge represents a gross misunderstanding of Darwinism.

My argument doesn’t even mention Darwinism. Upright BiPed

Apparently my comment at #188 has provoked Keith (at TSZ) into challenging me once again to respond to his revised version of my argument. This is a revision where he first adds language to my argument that appears nowhere in the original, and then he victoriously attacks the very language he’s added. (geez…) Among other things, Keith wants to revise my argument by adding “design” to the premises of the argument (he begins by adding it to the very first line of his revision) thereby making the argument assume its conclusion. Why he thinks I would feel obligated to defend his revision is a complete mystery. Furthermore, why he thinks I am on the end of his chain is an even bigger mystery. In actuality, none of this is a mystery at all. The details of my argument had already been fairly well tested in front of specialists, so I knew going in that the material observations were supported and that the logic was valid. The only question was negotiating a nest of emotional and belligerent ideologues. Knowing up front that the group at TSZ could not advance any material objections, the only option that would be left to them was to redirect the argument and seek a better position, which is exactly what Keith (and others) have been attempting to do. Mankind’s strategic godfathers have been writing about this tactic for over 2500 years, and it was a safe bet that the gurus at TSZ were not going to invent any new methods of engagement. - - - - - - - - - - - - Keith, Allow me to explain to you what happened. I intentionally maintained direct competitive contact with a single opponent at TSZ and didn’t allow that single conversation to get out of hand. I simply paced the hogwash coming from the gallery, and managed to maintain this central conversation long enough to defeat the specific objections of my target. That target was Reciprocating Bill, who by his own words deflated both of his key objections. (Pushing RB into defeating his own arguments took entirely too long, and that was my fault for unrelated reasons). In any case, the attempts to dislodge this central conversation were all destined to fail for the very reason that it was all too obvious. The acrimonious boo-hoo-ing over ‘not understanding the argument’ could not have been more transparent. People who pretend not to understand concepts should not then turn around and use those same concepts in their subsequent objections. All of you should try to be more like Patrick, who has ‘playing stupid’ down to an art form. If he was not so careless as to reveal himself by constantly lying in the midst of a recorded conversation, one could honestly think he was a complete idiot. The bottom line is that you’all were unable to identify any flaws in the material observations (or the logic) after two months of trying. You lost. Get over it. If it makes you feel any better, it was not ID, or me, or strategy that beat you – it was the material evidence itself. Since all of you give lip service to being empiricist, the identity of your victor should help you swallow the loss a little easier. :) Upright BiPed

“Idea X is not justified” is a bad criticism, as it applies to all ideas.

Perhaps it is a bad criticism, but not for the reason you give. I can't help but notice how you insulate your own ideas from criticism. Mung

UB: Here you say that you hold all your positions open to criticism, which you are quick to point out is not taking a position, but other people must think it is, and these other people criticize it as being useless, but in the end that’s okay, because when you get around to the real world of speeding buses, you are allowed to take a position anyway. "Idea X is not justified" is a bad criticism, as it applies to all ideas. critical rationalist

CR: The second of your bolded text states: “According to the critical rationalists, the exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests.” CR: I see that you present this tidbit of wisdom as the hood ornament of your movement. But the remainder of humanity has pretty much been doing this all along. We don’t typically step in front of speeding buses, because we’ve calculated what outcomes from that action are more ‘quite likely’ than others. All in all, it’s not a particularly new way of viewing the world. Which is a strawman. Specifically, the sections I quoted begins not with one but three attitudes.

In the light of the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism, we can discern three attitudes towards positions: relativism, “true belief” and critical rationalism

Are you suggesting there is no difference between these attitudes as presented? Furthermore, I bolded the parts of the third attitude, which points out you are projecting your problem, by virtue of your pre-enlightenment, authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge, on me. From the quote… True believers embrace justificationism. They insist that some positions are better than others though they accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for an belief. They accept that we make our choice regardless of reason: “Here I stand!”. Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other dogmatists because they share the theory of justificationism. Justification is impossible. For example, conclusions of an argument are not proven unless the premises are proven, which is impossible. You either have to assume that you've proven them, which isn't' the same as actually proving them, or you are faced with an infinite regress. Critical Rationalism is neither justificationism or relativism, as outlined in the excerpt from the paper which can be found in it's entirety here. So, your argument is parochial in that is assumes a dichotomy of either relativism or dogmatism / “true belief". From the Wikipedia entry on Critical Rationalism….

Critical rationalism rejects the classical position that knowledge is justified true belief; it instead holds the exact opposite: That, in general, knowledge is unjustified untrue unbelief. It is unjustified because of the non-existence of good reasons. It is untrue, because it usually contains errors that sometimes remain unnoticed for hundreds of years. And it is not belief either, because scientific knowledge, or the knowledge needed to build a plane, is contained in no single person's mind. It is only available as the content of books.

William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way. According to Bartley, some justificationists are positive about this mistake. They are naïve rationalists, and thinking that their knowledge can indeed be founded, in principle, it may be deemed certain to some degree, and rational. Other justificationists are negative about these mistakes. They are epistemological relativists, and think (rightly, according to the critical rationalist) that you cannot find knowledge, that there is no source of epistemological absolutism. But they conclude (wrongly, according to the critical rationalist) that there is therefore no rationality, and no objective distinction to be made between the true and the false. By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought.

critical rationalist

How are you defining "explanation"? Because as far as I can tell darwinism is an "explanation" in the same way school kids explain why they don't have their homework. Joe

Theories are explanations. While it's not limited to just biology, darwinism is an explanation the origin of the knowledge of how perform the transformations that build biological adaptations was created. As such, the assumption that Darwinism [which is an explanation] needs something capable of “establishing a semiotic state” (material or otherwise) that would be the source of that knowledge represents a gross misunderstanding of Darwinism. critical rationalist

Mung: It’s in the same sense that an internal combustion engine needs combustion. See my above comment regarding quasi-autonomous phenomena Substitute wanting to make tea with powering a car. Substitute combustion with boiling water. Substitute water molecules with air and fuel molecules. critical rationalist

Congratulations to Upright Biped for getting the members of TSZ mumbling and grumbling. And if keiths wants to talk about evasion all he needs to do is watch evos when asked to support he claims of their position. Ya see keiths, IF your position actually had positive support you would just present that to refute UB's argument. That you have failed to do so after all this time tells everyone that you don't have anything. Joe

Grant the initial thesis and conclusion are unassailable can similarly waterproof implications or follow-on argumentation be outlined? (If this is a work in progress no worries.) The reason I ask is that I've seen many threads on UD spent trying to get the opposition to walk through an open door while we traverse a spiral of errors with claims that there is no door. So the thread never enters the room! steveO

CR:

As such, the assumption that Darwinism needs something capable of “establishing a semiotic state” (material or otherwise) that would be the source of that knowledge represents a gross misunderstanding of Darwinism.

I must have missed that part where Upright BiPed pointed out that Darwinism can't even get started, much less succeed. It's in the same sense that an internal combustion engine needs combustion. Mung

Here you say that you hold all your positions open to criticism, which you are quick to point out is not taking a position, but other people must think it is, and these other people criticize it as being useless, but in the end that’s okay, because when you get around to the real world of speeding buses, you are allowed to take a position anyway. That’s groovy man. Really.

Haha. So reminiscent of the exchange between Elizabeth Liddle and nullasalus. Mung

CR

It’s really quite simple: your argument implicitly assumes Darwinism should be reducible to some mechanical system. As such, it’s parochial in nature.

My argument doesn't even mention Darwinism.

In fact, you actually pointed this out when you wrote.

The comment you quote was written as a response to your comment about Darwinism.

Darwinism fits under the umbrella of Popper’s universal theory of knowledge creation. As such, it includes the theory that the knowledge of how to build organisms is genuinely created, rather than having been present in some form at the outset. This knowledge is emergent.

Are you incapable of understanding that the heritable information that Darwinian evolution is based upon requires heritable information?

As such, the assumption that Darwinism needs something capable of “establishing a semiotic state” (material or otherwise) that would be the source of that knowledge represents a gross misunderstanding of Darwinism.

For someone who sells themselves as a watcher of argumentation, you surely have a dim understanding of how argumentation is conducted. What you account for as an "assumption" is a actually conclusion. (There is a difference in these two, in case you weren't aware). And the conclusion is based upon the empirical work of people like Franscis Crick, Marshal Nirenberg, and others - and isn't even controversial). The challenge of the OP was to show the premises to be false, or the logic to be invalid - which you have done neither. If you have a complaint about the evidence itself, then your complaint is with empirical reality, which frankly, would not surprise me a bit. As far misunderstanding Darwinism, please put your money where your mouth is and describe for me Darwinian evolution without recorded heritable information. Upright BiPed

It’s really quite simple: your argument implicitly assumes Darwinism should be reducible to some mechanical system.

And DARWIN wrote about that mechanical system- ie the system that replaces the designer. The system that we now know does nothing of consequence. What do you think the whole debate is about? Joe

Upright Biped- Of course because we observe semiotic systems in living organisms AND we "know" blind and undirected processes are responsible for living organisms , well because we don't see any darn designer inside, then your argument is refuted (condensed from other matter we did. 2nd law saw to that). Nothing to see here- move on :roll: Joe

UB: I asked a straightforward question in order to evoke a straightforward response. You were unsuccessful. I do not intend on trying to make your case for you. If you cannot coherently articulate it, then so be it. It's really quite simple: your argument implicitly assumes Darwinism should be reducible to some mechanical system. As such, it's parochial in nature. In fact, you actually pointed this out when you wrote..

It is only a “problem” to the extent that evolutionary theory (specifically Darwinian theory) is fully dependent on the arrangements of matter being described here, which I have referred to as “representations” and “protocols”. It is their material existence that is being observed and presented (by extension) as the necessary material conditions for evolution to occur. Therefore evolution cannot be the source of their existence.

To summarize one of my previous comments…

So, some kinds of phenomena can be explained in terms of themselves alone – without direct reference to anything at the atomic level. In other words, they are quasi-autonomous (nearly self-contained). Resolution into explicably at a higher level is emergence.

Darwinism fits under the umbrella of Popper's universal theory of knowledge creation. As such, it includes the theory that the knowledge of how to build organisms is genuinely created, rather than having been present in some form at the outset. This knowledge is emergent. As such, the assumption that Darwinism needs something capable of "establishing a semiotic state" (material or otherwise) that would be the source of that knowledge represents a gross misunderstanding of Darwinism. critical rationalist

Allan Miller 09042012: "And yet molecules are blindly transcribing and translating, right now worldwide. Where does this ‘knowledge’ live? If you answered ‘in molecules’, you were correct. - - - - - - - - ...from UB at 162:

There is a principle in physics that says that any physical structure will distort and twist, and naturally orient itself to seek its lowest potential energy. It draws on the simple distinction between a stretched rubber band and a relaxed rubber band. The interactions of different physical structures will also seek this lowest potential energy state, making interactions dependent upon the rates of change and exchange of energy. Now consider the nucleic triplet C-T-A. This is an isolated and identified causal structure within the process of protein synthesis. C-T-A will evoke a specific effect within the system which is not based upon its mere presence, but based upon its arrangement (i.e. C-T-A). But its arrangement is not determined by its lowest potential energy, and can be re-arranged in order to evoke a different effect. Now consider that while this arrangement evokes an effect, it does not physically determine what that effect will be. Instead, the effect is determined by a second arrangement of matter which is both spatially and temporally isolated from the first. This demonstrates that unambiguous function is being derived from an arrangement of matter (i.e. the sequence of C-T-A) which is not determined by its lowest potential energy. In other words, the unambiguous function of life is not reducible to the principle of lowest potential energy, but to the relationship that exist between two sets of isolated arrangements of matter. You asked for a categorical distinction, and now you have one. The mechanism required for the origin of this system will need to coordinate the relationship between these two sets, and also be a source of the sequence in the first, leading to unambiguous function (otherwise, we would not be here to observe it). - – - – - – - – - And I might add that all of this must be in place in order for Darwinian evolution to even exist as a causal force in the natural history of life on earth.

Upright BiPed

CLAVDIVS

That’s fine. I understand you are stipulating that at no point in your argument do you rely upon either the irreducibility or the reducibility of any elements of genetics to physical laws.

Good, you now understand that my argument is not dependent on a reduction to physical law. On the other hand, the general thrust of your counter-arguments above very much courted the idea of there being nothing in the system that wasn’t reducible to physical law. When I pointed out that physicists can demonstrate that symbol structures (like nucleic triplets) are indeed not reducible to physical law, you shrank from that observation by minimizing it as being unsatisfactory to you. Imagine that.

Let’s acknowledge, just for this discussion, your conclusion that genetics exhibits semiotic states, and therefore the origin of genetics requires a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state. So what?

You mean…”other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show?” If you are a Richard Dawkins pumping out best-sellers – waxing over the effervescent elegance of the Darwinian mechanism to the throngs of non-curious patrons of scientific imagination – you sure don’t want to start talking about the critical requirements for that mechanism to exist, particularly if those requirements include arbitrary representations and transfer protocols. Upright BiPed

Yes Joe, I see that. I find it amazing that they are still playing the “You didn’t answer Keith” card. Keith asked me to summarize my argument, so I did. He didn’t like my summary so he revised it (a common practice at TSZ) by adding several things that weren’t part of my argument. Amazingly, he then took issue with all those things he added. I suppose they keep talking about it (without actually linking to it) because if they did, someone might see that I already responded to Keith on more than one occassion by pointing out that he had added a bunch of irrelevant things to the argument. I suppose someone might see that as me having already responded to Keith, and linking to it might poo poo on their rhetoric. This is the kind of “academically rigorous” analysis that Elizabeth Liddle wants associated with her name; and Keith, Allan Miller, Alan Fox, Pertrushka, Toronto, Reciprocating Bill, Dr Who, Flint, and Mike Elzinga are only too happy to provide it for her. They also want me to respond to Allan Miller’s challenge that there is nothing stopping a system comprised of a single amino acid from becoming a two amino acid system, and then a three amino acid system, etc. I already pointed out that a single amino acid system does not have the information carrying capacity to code for itself, and therefore it is physically unable to become ‘a system’. That didn’t seem to matter to them.

BiPed to Keiths – May 21st, 2012 As for your rewrite, I have a very simple question to ask of you. Do you think it is relevant to this conversation that the semiotic argument does not contain a B1, or a B2, or a B3? Moreover, do you think it is relevant to the validity of my argument that you ignore the opportunity to challenge the actual premises of the argument, only to inject foreign material into the argument and challenge those instead?

Allan Miller to BiPed – May 4th, 2012 Your argument does go away when there is a single acid being attached by a ribosome to a peptide chain. So, to evade that possibility, you simply point to the undisputed fact that no known life forms have a tRNA library with a single member. Yet you have no biochemically-based argument for dismissal of consideration of precursor systems, only its inconvenience for your theory. [emphasis added] BiPed to Allan Miller – May 9th, 2012 Which do you think would be more difficult; predicting amino acids from the material make-up of nucleotides or coding for the production of a ribosome in a mono acid system?

BiPed to Elizabeth Liddle – May 11th 2012 As for the comments of Allan, he is entirely tied to the idea that a mono-acid system could evolve into a two-acid system, and so on. Even granting huge assumptions, the fact that a mono-acid system (coding for one acid and stop) is physically incapable of coding for a mono-acid system, does not seem to affect his confidence, and therefore he must simply take the system itself for granted.

Upright BiPed

Allan Miller thinks the knowledge lives in the molecules. Well Allan if it does then they were programmed and nature doesn't program. Blind and undirected processes don't program. Only intelligent agencies program. Unprogrammed molecules don't have any knowledge and cannot create a semiotic state. That said any of you can just step up and actually support your position with real evidence... Joe

CLAVDIVS- Semiotic states require knowledge- knowledge of what symbolizes what. In this case knowledge of what codon represents which amino acid. Knowledge that blind molecules just do not have. Joe

Kairosfocus, Not that I have seen. Right now they are focused on UB's semiotic argument, Dembski's LCI, misrepresenting ID , over-stating their position and equivocating. They did toy with your post for a while but I guess they gave up. Joe

Joe, has any of the TSZ circle tried to answer the syllabus of 18 q's here, cogently? I know someone has been struggling with No. 1, on induction ,as in the major part of real world reasoning on evidence. KF kairosfocus

Upright BiPed @ 181

As for granting a priori that the system is reducible to physical law (even though it is irrelevant to the conclusion of the argument) … well, it’s irrelevant to the conclusion of the argument, so there is no reason to grant it. If it is reducible, that doesn’t change the observations being made here. If it isn’t reducible, that still doesn’t change those observations. It’s irrelevant.

That's fine. I understand you are stipulating that at no point in your argument do you rely upon either the irreducibility or the reducibility of any elements of genetics to physical laws.

The conclusion of the argument is that the transfer of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state, and therefore its origin will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state.

Well, then, we return to my earlier observation (@ 151) that I am not sure I grasp the purpose of the argument. Let's acknowledge, just for this discussion, your conclusion that genetics exhibits semiotic states, and therefore the origin of genetics requires a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state. So what? You are merely observing that if system X has property Y, then - however system X came about - it must have involved at some point the introduction of property Y. This is almost tautological. What is it about semiotic states that is supposed to make this conclusion interesting? What does it tell us that we didn't know before? Cheers CLAVDIVS

Well I see the denizens over on TSZ are still upset because their position still doesn't have any positive evidence nor any way of testing to see if their mechanism has the capabilities of producing transcription and translation. Heck if they could produce a testable hypothesis for such a claim that alone would go a long way to giving their position some hope. But they can't even do that. But they sure as heck can misrepresent and misconstrue an argument though. The TSZ saying: "When you can't beat them with evidence, baffle them with BS and claim victory." Joe

CLAVDIVS

Right here you state the argument is not dependent on whether genetics is reducible to physical laws. Therefore, logically, it should not matter to the argument to grant that genetics is reducible to physical laws, because such is irrelevant.

The argument is not dependent of the reducibility of genetic information to physical law because that is not the question being addressed by the argument. Do you understand this distinction? Further, do you believe that such distinctions are neccesarily made with regard to questions and answers, and that those distinctions are important in assessing the validity of arguments? For instance, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics does not explain why my daughter’s favorite color is purple. That fact however does not weaken the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. This should be somewhat obvious, yet you seem completely intent on conflating the two anyway, and you seem to want to do this for the expressed purpose of questioning the validity of the argument – which is exactly what you cannot do. This is either a case of terribly poor reasoning on your part, or a tactical maneuver in order to avoid the conclusion of the argument, or perhaps both. As for granting a priori that the system is reducible to physical law (even though it is irrelevant to the conclusion of the argument) … well, it’s irrelevant to the conclusion of the argument, so there is no reason to grant it. If it is reducible, that doesn’t change the observations being made here. If it isn’t reducible, that still doesn’t change those observations. It’s irrelevant. Do you understand? Once again, this should be obvious.

I was just trying to clear up the apparent contradiction between your post @ 162, where you say the reducibility of genetics to physical law is irrelevant to the argument in the OP, and your post @ 176, where you say it’s highly relevant. Please take it as constructive criticism that these two comments appear contradictory and confusing.

Again, there is no contradiction. What you suggest is a contradiction is based upon an issue that is irrelevant to the conclusion of the argument. May I ask you to pay particular attention to a particular sentence? The following is that sentence: The conclusion of the argument is that the transfer of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state, and therefore its origin will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state. If we can be so lucky as to there being no problem in comprehending that sentence, then clearly, you will see that there is no stipulation that the system (or the mechanism of its origin) be reducible, or not reducible, to physical law. Given that fact, the question of whether or not it is reducible does not impact the conclusion of the argument. Now, the remainder of your comment is entirely based upon this irrelevant issue. However, if you agree that distinctions can be made as to what questions any particular argument might address, and that those distinctions are critical in evaluating the validity of those arguments, then there is no need for me to address the remainder of your comment. It is beset with an inescapable flaw in reasoning. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Critical Rationalist I asked a straightforward question in order to evoke a straightforward response. You were unsuccessful. I do not intend on trying to make your case for you. If you cannot coherently articulate it, then so be it. I noticed in your response you bolded three portions of text. The first of these three begins with this question: "Is the conclusion is that existence of abstractions requires some ultimate arbiter?" To answer that, again, allow me to post the conclusion written in the OP:

CONCLUSION: These two physical objects (the representation and protocol) along with the required preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation, and the production of unambiguous function from that arbitrary component, confirm that the transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information. It’s an arbitrary relationship instantiated in matter. (…which has been generalized elsewhere as…) "The conclusion of the semiotic argument is that the transfer of recorded information in the genome demonstrates a semiotic state, and therefore its origin will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state".

If the answer to your question is not clear enough, allow me to answer in a single word: No. The second of your bolded text states: "According to the critical rationalists, the exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests." I see that you present this tidbit of wisdom as the hood ornament of your movement. But the remainder of humanity has pretty much been doing this all along. We don’t typically step in front of speeding buses, because we’ve calculated what outcomes from that action are more ‘quite likely’ than others. All in all, it’s not a particularly new way of viewing the world. Your final bolded text then says: "Of course this is no help for people who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, and it does not undermine the logic of critical preference". There is nothing particularly interesting about that text, perhaps you feel your views are particularly valuable to humanity because you say you hold none of them closely (having nothing invested in them) and your proof of this takes the form of “because I said so”. At the same time, my views are based upon the real world observations of nucleotides and such. Frankly by comparison, I think your substantiation is a bit of a yawner. What is more interesting is the text that precedes this bolded portion. Here you say that you hold all your positions open to criticism, which you are quick to point out is not taking a position, but other people must think it is, and these other people criticize it as being useless, but in the end that’s okay, because when you get around to the real world of speeding buses, you are allowed to take a position anyway. That’s groovy man. Really. - - - - - - - - - UD After two weeks, there hasn’t been a single opponent able to provide a flaw in either the material observations themselves, or in the logic of the conclusion. At this point I am left with one objector who cannot help but manage to add his own mess to the argument, and a shadow boxer who can’t even manage that. Upright BiPed

CR: Representations are abstractions. UB: It is unfortunate that you didn’t clarify your thought. In this instance, representations are abstractions of what, precisely? Are you sure we're talking about the same comment? Or perhaps it is unfortunate that you didn't read my comment in its entirety? CR: It’s unclear how the existence of abstractions is actually a problem for evolutionary theory. Is the conclusion is that existence of abstractions requires some ultimate arbiter? If so, this represents justificationism and is parochial. It also assumes that all high-level explanations should be reductionist in nature. However, this simply isn’t the case. Nor is it necessary or even desirable to do so for us to actually make progress. UB: It is only a “problem” to the extent that evolutionary theory (specifically Darwinian theory) is fully dependent on the arrangements of matter being described here, which I have referred to as “representations” and “protocols”. It is their material existence that is being observed and presented (by extension) as the necessary material conditions for evolution to occur. Therefore evolution cannot be the source of their existence. It's unclear what the difference is between the example/question I asked you (and criticized) and your response. Can you clarify the difference? CR: Nor has UB clarified what he means by “observations of the transfer of recorded information” in regards to observers and justification of the transfer. UB: Not only is that not the case, but for anyone over the past 40-50 years who has even a modest understanding of protein synthesis, it is not even particularly arguable what someone might mean by the using the phrase “the transfer of recordeed information”. Yet the majority of people with significant understanding of protein synthesis do not see it as problem for evolutionary theory. As such, I'm unclear what you mean by "observations of the transfer of recorded information” For example, do you mean information only transferred if it is verified or justified in someway? Does the verification occur by some observer or arbiter? Which observer/arbiter and what what hard to vary role do they play, if any? UB: As for the remainder of your comment, it seems terribly like you want to shoehorn a perspective onto these observations which doesn’t actually effect them. Again, it’s not necessary for genetics to be reducible to law for it to be *explicable* or for us to make progress. If you mean that we cannot justify genetics with some ultimate cause then you are projecting your problem on me. Specifically, I'm a critical rationalist, not a justicationist. From the following essay on Hayek, Bartley and Popper: Justificationism and the Abuse of Reason

3. Responses to the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism In the light of the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism, we can discern three attitudes towards positions: relativism, “true belief” and critical rationalism [Note 3] Relativists tend to be disappointed justificationists who realise that positive justification cannot be achieved. From this premise they proceed to the conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position. True believers embrace justificationism. They insist that some positions are better than others though they accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for an belief. They accept that we make our choice regardless of reason: "Here I stand!". Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other dogmatists because they share the theory of justificationism. According to the critical rationalists, the exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism and a standard objection to this stance is that it is empty; just holding our positions open to criticism provides no guidance as to what position we should adopt in any particular situation. This criticism misses its mark for two reasons. First, critical rationalism is not a position. It is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by fixing on a position. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticised, defended and relinquished. Second, Bartley did provide guidance on adopting positions; we may adopt the position that to this moment has stood up to criticism most effectively. Of course this is no help for people who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, and it does not undermine the logic of critical preference.

critical rationalist

Upright BiPed @ 176

UB @ 162: The question being addressed by the argument is not whether genetics is reducible to physical law, so as a consequence of that, its validity is not dependent on the answer to that question.

Right here you state the argument is not dependent on whether genetics is reducible to physical laws. Therefore, logically, it should not matter to the argument to grant that genetics is reducible to physical laws, because such is irrelevant. I asked you (@ 175) to confirm this, and you responded:

UB @ 176: You ask for a categorical distinction that the genetic system is not reducible to physical law. So I show you that the centerpiece of the system (the precise point where the unambiguous function of Life is derived) is categorically not reducible to physical law. And so in your very next question you want to quietly slide past all that, and want me instead to agree that the system is reducible to physical law.

I was just trying to clear up the apparent contradiction between your post @ 162, where you say the reducibility of genetics to physical law is irrelevant to the argument in the OP, and your post @ 176, where you say it's highly relevant. Please take it as constructive criticism that these two comments appear contradictory and confusing. Going with your most recent post @ 176 -- that the argument is dependent upon the irreducibility of some elements of genetics to physical law -- we can return to my original criticism @ 160 that the argument is an appeal to ignorance and your rebuttal of this criticism:

UB @ 162: ... unambiguous function is being derived from an arrangement of matter (i.e. the sequence of C-T-A) which is not determined by its lowest potential energy. In other words, the unambiguous function of life is not reducible to the principle of lowest potential energy, but to the relationship that exist between two sets of isolated arrangements of matter. You asked for a categorical distinction, and now you have one.

I had in mind categorical as in a universal statement in formal logic with no qualifications or exceptions i.e. 'All S are P'. Your premise about the irreducibility of elements of genetics is of the form 'No S is P', namely 'no physical laws (S) fully explain genetic information transfer (P)'. This is the dreaded universal negative -- you cannot establish it just by enumerating instances of physical laws that fail to fully explain genetic information transfer, such as molecular energy levels. To establish this universal negative you must establish some property of S or P that entails that No S is P. I appreciate you've tried to build that argument up by reference to material separateness and the apparently arbitrary nature of the genetic code, but neither of those strictly entail the irreducibility of genetic TRI to physical laws. The robber's shadow is a counterexample of TRI via materially separate elements. And organic life is rife with examples of arbitrary configurations that are then 'locked in' for all descendants, like the number of legs of tetrapods, which is explained by a mathematically simple branching tree model. How can one rule out the possibility of a similar kind of model of the origin of genetic TRI? So I still feel this part of the argument is weak. Cheers CLAVDIVS

Upright Biped, Empirical data NEVER mattered to them. Does "eons of time" ring a bell? Joe

Empirical data does not matter to the opponents of ID. Demonstrated. Upright BiPed

CLAVDIVS, Let me get this straight. You ask for a categorical distinction that the genetic system is not reducible to physical law. So I show you that the centerpiece of the system (the precise point where the unambiguous function of Life is derived) is categorically not reducible to physical law. And so in your very next question you want to quietly slide past all that, and want me instead to agree that the system is reducible to physical law. That is really quite funny. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed @ 162

CLAVDIVS @ 151: I’m not sure I grasp the purpose of the argument in the OP. The idea seems to be that there exist certain arbitrary elements of genetic information transfer systems, where arbitrary means not reducible to natural law. [Because of] these arbitrary elements, such systems produce very organised, complex effects. Therefore, there must exist some organising principle over and above, and not reducible to, natural law.

You did not challenge this paraphrase of the OP, other than to substitute "because of" for "in spite of". But then, later, you wrote:

UB @ 162: At first glance I would say you’ve simply misunderstood the argument. The question being addressed by the argument is not whether genetics is reducible to physical law, so as a consequence of that, its validity is not dependent on the answer to that question. The question being addressed by the argument is about the operation of the genetic system. The argument concludes that the TRI in the genetic system demonstrates a semiotic state, and therefore its origin will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state. ... You will notice that there is no stipulation that the genetic system must be reducible to physical law, or even that the mechanism of its origin be reducible to physical law.

So, to be crystal clear, do you grant, for purposes of this discussion, that the origin of genetics is entirely reducible to mechanistic laws, including the origin of the mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state? Cheers CLAVDIVS

mahuna:

Or more generally, I can represent a dinosaur with a toy dinosaur. My daughter can be complete satisfied with this representation, but many paleontologists might complain about its completeness and accuracy.

Actually, the toy dinosaur is an instance of an abstraction of an abstraction. Unless you're going to argue that it's an abstraction of a 'specific' dinosaur. Maybe Upright BiPed will address the difference between abstraction and representation. Hmmm... maybe the toy dinosaur is a material representation of an abstract concept. Surely there's some information here somewhere. Mung

mahuna:

Or more generally, I can represent a dinosaur with a toy dinosaur. My daughter can be complete satisfied with this representation, but many paleontologists might complain about its completeness and accuracy.

Actually, the toy dinosaur is an instance of an abstraction of an abstraction. Unless you're going to argue that it's an abstraction of a 'specific' dinosaur. Maybe Upright BiPed will address the difference between abstraction and representation. Hmmm... maybe the toy dinosaur is a material representation of an abstract concept. Surely there's some information here somewhere.

Mung

Upright BiPed:

Perhaps I am completely mistaken, or perhaps I just didn’t read enough for context – but I thought I saw you say somewhere that I wasn’t claiming the genetic system was a semiotic system. But the use of “representations and rules in a process” is the very definition of a semiotic system, and that is my claim.

I think perhaps you didn't read enough for context. Was that in this thread? I can't find it. But, iirc, someone was claiming that you were claiming that DNA is "the system." Your argument is broader than just DNA and yet they were trying to restrict it to just DNA. I was trying to be helpful and point out they were misrepresenting your argument. At least that's the way I remember it. :) Mung

Upright BiPed & gpuccio Thanks for your responses. Unfortunately, I'm considerably distracted by family business this weekend. Hopefully I'll have a chance to respond soon. Cheers CLAVDIVS

CLAUDIUS: A design paradigm is a mcuh better explanation frame for that. And it was you who posted about supposed "evidence". So yes, the butden is yours to present that evidence. If you don't do that, that is retreating, for me. gpuccio

critical rationalist: My point is simple. Only "explanatory knowledge", that is a knowledge that originates in a conscious agent, can explain a system like DNA protein coding genes and the translation system, with the double implementation of the same symbolic code. That is my point. So, the only reasonable explanation for that kins of system is design. "Non explanatory knowledge", that is the informational arrangement that could arise by unguided events in a material system, has "significantly less reach that explanatory knowledge", as you say. So much so, that its reach is infinitely far away from those types of complex symbolic systems. And I am certainly not "suggesting that science should always explain everything reductively?". Just the opposite. As should be clear from what I write. gpuccio

Clavdivs, Just as a further point of clarity, here is a additional view:

Evolution requires the genotype-phenotype distinction, a primeval epistemic cut that separates energy-degenerate, rate-independent genetic symbols from the rate-dependent dynamics of construction that they control. ... Semiotic systems consist of (1) a discrete set of symbol structures (symbol vehicles) that can exist in a quiescent, rate-independent (non-dynamic) states, as in most memory storage, (2) a set of interpreting structures (non-integrable constraints, codes), and (3) an organism or system in which the symbols have a function. -Howard Pattee, Prof. Emeritus, SUNY

Upright BiPed

Discussion about logical fallacies is not “pseudo-philosophical nonsense”, it is relevant and expressly called for by the OP.

Clavdivs, if you'll read my 162, you'll see that you asked a question that the OP did not attempt to answer. An argument that doesn't provide an answer to a question it wasn't designed to ask - is not a logical fallacy. Upright BiPed

Representations are abstractions.

It is unfortunate that you didn't clarify your thought. In this instance, representations are abstractions of what, precisely?

It’s unclear how the existence of abstractions is actually a problem for evolutionary theory.

It is only a "problem" to the extent that evolutionary theory (specifically Darwinian theory) is fully dependent on the arrangements of matter being described here, which I have referred to as "representations" and "protocols". It is their material existence that is being observed and presented (by extension) as the necessary material conditions for evolution to occur. Therefore evolution cannot be the source of their existence.

Nor has UB clarified what he means by “observations of the transfer of recorded information” in regards to observers and justification of the transfer.

Not only is that not the case, but for anyone over the past 40-50 years who has even a modest understanding of protein synthesis, it is not even particularly arguable what someone might mean by the using the phrase “the transfer of recordeed information”. If you feel that I should clarify the fact that we observe this phenomenon, I'll be happy to do so. We observe this phenomenon, just like all the others. As for the remainder of your comment, it seems terribly like you want to shoehorn a perspective onto these observations which doesn't actually effect them. If I am misunderstanding your point, then you should be able to relate it specifically to the text of my argument and point out the issue as it interrelates. Upright BiPed

gpuccio @ 161

CLAVDIVS: genetics is reducible to natural laws that are presently unknown but may be known in future. GPUCCIO: Who cares? If we reasoned that way, we could well renounce all empirical science. Why build theories for quantum mechanics or anything else, if the same facts could in the future be explained by completely different laws, at present not even guessed? The simple truth is that empirical science is all about the best explanation compatible with present facts and knowledge, and has no room for false logical reasonings like yours.

If you presently have an empirically demonstrable explanation for the origin of genetics -- something science doesn't think it has, as pointed out by Upright BiPed -- then let's hear it.

So, why in your 160 are you retreating to such pseudo-philosophical nonsense?

Discussion about logical fallacies is not "pseudo-philosophical nonsense", it is relevant and expressly called for by the OP. Nor is it being "retreated to" because I don't have the burden here, as anyone can see. Cheers CLAVDIVS

gpuccio: Well, now I understand better you terminology. So, you call “non-explanatory knowledge” what I (and others) would call “unguided generation of useful information in a system by random variation”. You’re overlooking a key point: non-explanatory knowledge has significantly less reach that explanatory knowledge. If I lack an explanation as to why the coconut is opened when it accidentally fell on the rock, then its usefulness is limited to just that scenario. To open other coconuts from other trees without rocks beneath them, I’d cary them up a tree that did, then drop them. It’s a useful rule of thumb. However, there are always explanations for non-explanatory knowledge, even when they are not explicit. In the case of the coconut, these explanations include mass, inertia, etc., and has significantly more reach. Rather than dropping the coconuts from the tree to land on a rock, I can stay on the ground and strike any coconut with any rock. And I can substitute rocks and coconuts with other objects, such as anchors and shells, etc. This is significantly greater reach. This is a significant distinction which represents progress in our ability to, well, make progress as people. It also explains our recent, rapid increase in our ability to make progress. gpuccio: I wonder: do you believe that “non-explanatory knowledge” can explain (in the scientific sense) a system where digital coded, complex information is first stored, and then translated, by two completely different sets of code aware, complex procedures, like it happens in DNA protein genes? Just to know… I’m still not sure exactly what your asking or how it’s relevant. Translation mechanisms perform transformations of matter. Transformations occur with the necessary knowledge is present. In addition, cells build themselves based on the knowledge found in their genome. These transformations occur when the requisite knowledge is present as well. So, in both cases, the question is, “how was this knowledge created?” Knowledge is a high-level explanation for phenomena. For example if someone is defeated by a chess program, we do not say they were defected by electrons or sand. Yet, you seem to be asking me how electrons or sand can defeat a chess player. Are you suggesting that science should always explain everything reductively? critical rationalist

UD Editors: No one has come close to refuting UB’s thesis after 129 comments. We are moving this post to the top of the page to give the materialists another chance. Representations are abstractions. It's unclear how the existence of abstractions is actually a problem for evolutionary theory. Nor has UB clarified what he means by "observations of the transfer of recorded information" in regards to observers and justification of the transfer. Is the conclusion is that existence of abstractions requires some ultimate arbiter? If so, this represents justificationism and is parochial. It also assumes that all high-level explanations should be reductionist in nature. However, this simply isn't the case. Nor is it necessary or even desirable to do so for us to actually make progress. For example, in terms of fundamental physics, we encounter events of extreme complexity on a daily basis. If you place a pot of water on a stove, every computer working on the planet could not solve the equations to predict exactly what all those water molecules will do. Even if they could, we'd need to determine their initial state, the state of all external influences, etc., which is also an intractable task. However, if what we really care about is making tea, enough of this complexly resolves itself into hight-level simplify that allows us to do just that. We can predict how long water will take to boil with reasonable accuracy by knowing it's overall mass, the power of the heating element, etc. If we want more accuracy, we may need additional information. However this too exists in the form of relatively high-level phenomena which is also intractable. So, some kinds of phenomena can be explained in terms of themselves alone - without direct reference to anything at the atomic level. In other words, they are quasi-autonomous (nearly self-contained). Resolution into explicably at a higher level is emergence. IOW, it's not necessary for genetics to be reducible to law for it to be *explicable*. This leads us back to my initial comment… All logically conceivable transformations of matter can be classified in the following three ways: transformations that are prohibited by the laws of physics, spontaneous transformations (such as the formation of stars) or transformations which are possible when the requisite knowledge of how to perform them are present. Every conceivable transformation of matter is either impossible because of the laws of physics or achievable if the right knowledge is present. This dichotomy is entailed in the scientific world view. If there was some transformation of matter that was not possible regardless of how much knowledge was brought to bare, this would be a testable regularity in nature. That is, we would predict whenever that transformation was attempted, it would fail to occur. This itself would be a law of physics, which would be a contradiction. Furthermore, if we really do reside in a finite bubble of explicably, which exists in an island in a sea of of inexplicability, the inside of this bubble cannot be explicable either. This is because the inside is supposedly dependent what occurs in this inexplicable realm. Any assumption that the world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than "Zeus rules" there. And, given the dependency above (this realm supposedly effects us), this also means there can be no better expiation that "Zeus rules" inside this bubble as well. In other words, our everyday experience in this bubble would only appear explicable if we carefully refrain from asking specific questions. Note this bares a strong resemblance to a pre-scientific perspective with its distinction between an Earth designed for human beings and a heaven that is beyond human comprehension. critical rationalist

Hello Clavdivs,

But Upright BiPed, as I pointed out, for the argument to hold water it must be categorically established that genetics is not reducible to natural law.

At first glance I would say you've simply misunderstood the argument. The question being addressed by the argument is not whether genetics is reducible to physical law, so as a consequence of that, its validity is not dependent on the answer to that question. The question being addressed by the argument is about the operation of the genetic system. The argument concludes that the TRI in the genetic system demonstrates a semiotic state, and therefore its origin will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state. If your goal is to understand the origin of a system, then it is an advancement in knowledge to understand how that system operates and what its origin must therefore entail. You will notice that there is no stipulation that the genetic system must be reducible to physical law, or even that the mechanism of its origin be reducible to physical law. The argument being presented demonstrates that the system operates by the use of an arrangement of matter that evokes an unambiguous functional effect within the system, but does not physically determine what that effect will be. If it does not physically determine what that effect will be, then it does not have a local physical relationship to it. Instead, the effect is determined is material isolation from this arrangement of matter, by a second arrangement of matter. That is the threshold that the mechanism must be able to meet, because that is the way the system operates, and that is the way we find it. On second glance though, I would say your comment hits the nail on the head – is there a categorical distinction here? The answer to that question is 'yes', and again, this is the specific distinction that the argument is making. Allow me to shift gears and I’ll explain, and try not to botch the explanation. Perhaps I can express the essence of the issue. There is a principle in physics that says that any physical structure will distort and twist, and naturally orient itself to seek its lowest potential energy. It draws on the simple distinction between a stretched rubber band and a relaxed rubber band. The interactions of different physical structures will also seek this lowest potential energy state, making interactions dependent upon the rates of change and exchange of energy. Now consider the nucleic triplet C-T-A. This is an isolated and identified causal structure within the process of protein synthesis. C-T-A will evoke a specific effect within the system which is not based upon its mere presence, but based upon its arrangement (i.e. C-T-A). But its arrangement is not determined by its lowest potential energy, and can be re-arranged in order to evoke a different effect. Now consider that while this arrangement evokes an effect, it does not physically determine what that effect will be. Instead, the effect is determined by a second arrangement of matter which is both spatially and temporally isolated from the first. This demonstrates that unambiguous function is being derived from an arrangement of matter (i.e. the sequence of C-T-A) which is not determined by its lowest potential energy. In other words, the unambiguous function of life is not reducible to the principle of lowest potential energy, but to the relationship that exist between two sets of isolated arrangements of matter. You asked for a categorical distinction, and now you have one. The mechanism required for the origin of this system will need to coordinate the relationship between these two sets, and also be a source of the sequence in the first, leading to unambiguous function (otherwise, we would not be here to observe it). - - - - - - - - - And I might add that all of this must be in place in order for Darwinian evolution to even exist as a causal force in the natural history of life on earth. Upright BiPed

CLAVDIVS: The old fallacy again. We are speaking abour empirical science here, not mathematics. Therefore: 1. The genetic code is not reducible to natural law. is the only sound empirical explanation compatible with known facts. Your other "points" are empirically irrelevant: 2. genetics is reducible to natural laws that are presently unknown but may be known in future. Who cares? If we reasoned that way, we could well renounce all empirical science. Why build theories for quantum mechanics or anything else, if the same facts could in the future be explained by completely different laws, at present not even guessed? The simple truth is that empirical science is all about the best explanation compatible with present facts and knowledge, and has no room for false logical reasonings like yours. 3. genetics is reducible to natural law but we can never establish it because the relevant historical evidence has been destroyed by the passage of time. Same nonsense. We go on with the facts we have, or we can reasonably assume. Science does not stop because some facts could have been lost. 4. etc. There is simply no acceptable etc. But please, explain why you seem to have changed your argument. In your post 151, you stated: There is some evidence that the apparently arbitrary elements of genetics are in fact law-driven – this evidence needs to be addressed. which seems an acceptable empirical argument. Unfortunately not true. So, why in your 160 are you retreating to such pseudo-philosophical nonsense? Just to know... gpuccio

Upright BiPed @ 158

CLAVDIVS: What I believe still needs to be established is that genetics is categorically arbitrary and not reducible to natural law (i.e. unconscious mechanisms). There is some evidence that the apparently arbitrary elements of genetics are in fact law-driven – this evidence needs to be addressed. UB: Stereochemistry seems to be a dead end. Advances have come to a drought, not because a proper methodology for advancement has not revealed itself, but because the tantalizing possibilities develop no real distinctions. We are now at the point where avid researchers are now reviewing each other’s lack of advancement.

But Upright BiPed, as I pointed out, for the argument to hold water it must be categorically established that genetics is not reducible to natural law. That in your opinion research in this area appears to be a dead end, therefore genetics is not reducible to natural law, is a fallacious argument because it's an appeal to ignorance. Strictly speaking, an appeal to ignorance is the fallacy of the excluded middle: that it's not proven that genetics is reducible to natural law still leaves numerous possibilities open: 1. genetics truly is not reducible to natural law; 2. genetics is reducible to natural laws that are presently unknown but may be known in future; 3. genetics is reducible to natural law but we can never establish it because the relevant historical evidence has been destroyed by the passage of time; 4. etc. In short, the true position is we do not know whether or not genetics is reducible to natural law. Therefore, any argument that assumes in its premises that we do know this is unsound. Cheers CLAVDIVS

Hi Larry,

I guess I’m not sure about the “prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution.” When does “Darwinian evolution” begin? What’s happening before evolution?

“When does Darwinian evolution begin” is an interesting question. If you read the peer-reviewed writing of biosemioticians, they leave no doubt. Darwinian evolution began at the origin of Life with the establishment of the semiotic system that organizes living systems. To me, their claim may be the most coherent and supported claim in all of Life origins research.

More broadly, isn’t everything in the universe already a semiotic state? I ask because your last post didn’t use the word “quality,” which was the original point of focus in my questions. It seems like now you are saying that the curious quality of the two objects, representation and transfer protocol, is the quality of appearing designed. This quality, in turn, results from the two objects being set in a pre-existing semiotic state that organizes and coordinates them.

Firstly, I do not believe the whole of the universe is in a semiotic state. I have given my reasons. Secondly, it is beyond the scope of this argument to determine if a specific thing was designed, instead, this argument is intended to list the necessary and sufficient conditions for TRI, or more precisely, to list what must be observed in order to confirm an instance of TRI. It is unavoidably apparent that the use of representations and rules (i.e. semiosis) are two of the foundational requirements (the other two being the preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation, and the production of unambiguous function from that arbitrary component). The conclusion then becomes that the genetic translation apparatus demonstrates a semiotic state, and will therefore require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state. The thesis of Design is corroborated and made immediately arguable from these conclusions, but the validity of that argument does not change the observations made here. Design thinkers (such as UD's gpuccio and others) are quite capable of arguing from the establishment of genetic semiosis to the necessity of artificial input. Upright BiPed

Hello Clavdivs

I’m not sure I grasp the purpose of the argument in the OP. The idea seems to be that there exist certain arbitrary elements of genetic information transfer systems, where arbitrary means not reducible to natural law. In spite of these arbitrary elements, such systems produce very organised, complex effects. Therefore, there must exist some organising principle over and above, and not reducible to, natural law.

It is not “in spite” of these arbitrary elements, but “because of” them. It is specifically the arbitrary component of genetic representations which create bio-function through the protocol. The supported conclusion is that the genetic system is semiotic, and by logical extension, its origin requires a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state. By the way, the purpose of the argument from the beginning was to inventory the necessary and sufficient material conditions for the transfer of recorded information.

I think this is valid (and I agree with the conclusion, by the way), but I don’t think the argument is sound. The argument is sound if the conclusions flow from the premises and the premises are true. Establishing a problem with the logic and premises is the (thus far) unmet challenge of the OP. What I believe still needs to be established is that genetics is categorically arbitrary and not reducible to natural law (i.e. unconscious mechanisms). There is some evidence that the apparently arbitrary elements of genetics are in fact law-driven – this evidence needs to be addressed.

Stereochemistry seems to be a dead end. Advances have come to a drought, not because a proper methodology for advancement has not revealed itself, but because the tantalizing possibilities develop no real distinctions. We are now at the point where avid researchers are now reviewing each other’s lack of advancement.

On the whole, it appears that the aptamer experiments, although suggestive, fail to clinch the case for the stereochemical theory of the code. As noticed earlier, the affinities are rather weak, so that even the conclusions on their reality hinge on the adopted statistical models. Even more disturbing, for different amino acids, the aptamers show enrichment for either codon or anticodon sequence or even for both (76), a lack of coherence that is hard to reconcile with these interactions being the physical basis of the code. – Koonin / Novozhilov

Upright BiPed

CLAVDIVS: If you refer to the Yarus papers, those are really no evidence at all. Read them, and you will see. And if you believe they are "evidence", come here and explain why. We will discuss those points in detail. The genetic code is obviously categorically arbitrary and not reducible to natural law. Nobody has even begun to show any evidence of the contrary. gpuccio

Eric Anderson@154,

Before replication, you are dealing with pure chance and/or some kind of law-like property of chemistry and physics to form the first self-replicating system. Those are your only options. That is, unless one is willing to consider the obvious possibility of purposeful design . . .

Right. I see what you are saying, and that what I was expecting UBP to explain. Certainly the possibility of purposeful design has been on the table for millenia (as has materialism, or at least forms of it, if I remember my pre-Socratics). The question them becomes how to pursue that possibility in a meaningful, scientific way. Or is it enough only to entertain the possibility? LarTanner

And Allan Miller continues to prove that he isn't interested in science:

Joe, of course, has a non-DNA-built designer on hand to intelligently, semiotically build a chemical transcription/ translation system from scratch, thereby demonstrating the evidential superiority of his position.

Wow, a strawman and a total lack of understanding of how scientific inferences are arrived at, in one sentence. Nicely done Allan. But that is to be expected when the materialists can't support their own position with a testable hypothesis and supporting evidence. Thumbs high big guy. Joe

LarTanner:

"I guess I’m not sure about the “prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution.” When does “Darwinian evolution” begin?"

Darwinian evolution is alleged to build off of variations from one generation to the next. Therefore, by definition, Darwinian evolution cannot occur until we have a self-replicating system, usually described as an "organism," but in theory it could be something simpler, such as a single cell or the hypothetical self-replicating molecule. Thus, the search goes on for the most simple self-replicating system, because -- the thinking goes -- Darwinian evolution can kick in and do the creative work once we have a self-replicating system. Before replication, you are dealing with pure chance and/or some kind of law-like property of chemistry and physics to form the first self-replicating system. Those are your only options. That is, unless one is willing to consider the obvious possibility of purposeful design . . . Eric Anderson

UBP@14, Thanks for this:

The system therefore requires two material objects which operate as a formal system; i.e. recorded information cannot be transferred without the presence of both coordinated objects. From the standpoint of biology, it is an irreducibly complex system required prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution. Its origin will require the establishment of a semiotic state prior to the onset of organization via information.

I guess I'm not sure about the "prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution." When does "Darwinian evolution" begin? What's happening before evolution? More broadly, isn't everything in the universe already a semiotic state? I ask because your last post didn't use the word "quality," which was the original point of focus in my questions. It seems like now you are saying that the curious quality of the two objects, representation and transfer protocol, is the quality of appearing designed. This quality, in turn, results from the two objects being set in a pre-existing semiotic state that organizes and coordinates them. Do I have this right? If so, aren't we really talking about more than a pre-existing semiotic state? That is, aren't we really talking about a designing state, a condition in which items are arranged specifically to assemble systems? LarTanner

For all this blah, blah, blibbidy-blibbidy blah, no one has put forward any evidence that blind and undirected processes can produce the transcription/ translation system we observe in living organisms. And no one even knows how we could test such a premise. The objectors at TSZ can't do such a thing, evolutionary biologists can't do such a thing and the objectors here can't do such a thing. But hey all three groups can sure pound the table! Thumbs high big guys! All science so far... Joe

Upright BiPed @ 148

In the original argument I stated the definition of a representation as follows: A representation is an arrangemt of matter that evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. ... Right now I do not know if the second half of that definition was accidently clipped from the post that Barry pasted it from, or if I left it off in the post itself.

Well, I am only responding to the OP, not to any other writings here or elsewhere. I'm not sure I grasp the purpose of the argument in the OP. The idea seems to be that there exist certain arbitrary elements of genetic information transfer systems, where arbitrary means not reducible to natural law. In spite of these arbitrary elements, such systems produce very organised, complex effects. Therefore, there must exist some organising principle over and above, and not reducible to, natural law. I think this is valid (and I agree with the conclusion, by the way), but I don't think the argument is sound. What I believe still needs to be established is that genetics is categorically arbitrary and not reducible to natural law (i.e. unconscious mechanisms). There is some evidence that the apparently arbitrary elements of genetics are in fact law-driven - this evidence needs to be addressed. Cheers CLAVDIVS

Steveh,

I think another problem here is that you have realised that a simple analogy of man-made coding systems and DNA would not form a logically sound argument.

You think I realized that, huh? And you're here to point out the logical errors in the argument I decided to present in its place?

So you’ve tried to invoke some sort of universal truth applying in _all_ cases where a something is physically represented by something physically different

You mean like a regularity that can be generalized into a coherent theory? The nice thing about regularities is that they are immediately falsifiable by a single demonstration to the contrary. At that point they are either entirely overturned, or appropriately modified to account for the new evidence. Do you have anything like that you'd like to add?

But when given examples you say they are not valid because they are _are_ examples of non-arbitrary things which can simply be described by phsical laws.

You are accusing me of dishonestly knowing that someone had presented me an example which fit the criteria of my argument, but I discounted it because it invalidated my argument. Name it.

You did not show that information was not transferred or that no effect was evoked (your definition of a representation from point 1)

Name it. Upright BiPed

Steveh,

IMHO, you haven’t. AS I mentioned before many people here swear by the reality of Out-Of-Body experiences in which non-material entities can gather, store and disseminate information using purely non-material means. If they are correct, then _logically_, it _is_ possible to transfer information _without_ using a representation instantiated in matter. So your point 2 is logically incorrect and your argument fails as you state subsequent points rely on it...

I think I understand now. The actual content of my argument doesn't really matter; instead, you want me to address something else entirely, something that someone else said, which you say invalidates my argument, even though you don't believe it. Thats a good one. As unsuspecting as the people are on this site, its amazing more visitors don't try your moves. They are probably just too embarrassed. Upright BiPed

Clavdivs, In the original argument I stated the definition of a representation as follows: A representation is an arrangemt of matter that evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. I had to look up at the OP to understand what you were talking about, Right now I do not know if the second half of that definition was accidently clipped from the post that Barry pasted it from, or if I left it off in the post itself. I know I added the list of examples in parentheses, and may have left it off as an unintended consequence. It is something that I have covered dozens of times in the argument**, and I see I that I covered it in #140 above. Representations are arbitrary to the effects they evoke. I hope that clears it up for you. - - - - - - - - - - “Firstly, the representation (by necessity) is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes within the system. This is evidenced by the simple fact that the matter the representation is instantiated in, is not the effect it represents to the system. Secondly, the physical protocol must establish the material relationship between the representation and its effect, but it must do so while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation. In other words, neither the representation nor the protocol ever becomes the effect.” UBP, uncommondscent.com June 19 Upright BiPed

I think another problem here is that you have realised that a simple analogy of man-made coding systems and DNA would not form a logically sound argument. So you've tried to invoke some sort of universal truth applying in _all_ cases where a something is physically represented by something physically different i.e. that the arrangements are always arbitrary (not governed by physical law); But when given examples you say they are not valid because they are _are_ examples of non-arbitrary things which can simply be described by phsical laws. You did not show that information was not transferred or that no effect was evoked (your definition of a representation from point 1) steveh

I hope that I have satisfactorily addressed your 70 in my post to GP just above.

IMHO, you haven't. AS I mentioned before many people here swear by the reality of Out-Of-Body experiences in which non-material entities can gather, store and disseminate information using purely non-material means. If they are correct, then _logically_, it _is_ possible to transfer information _without_ using a representation instantiated in matter. So your point 2 is logically incorrect and your argument fails as you state subsequent points rely on it. The same problem will arise if you allow for the possibility that the universe was designed in the non-material mind of a non-material being before the existance of the matter - as most of those here believe. How was the designer's information generated, stored, manipulated and (later) instantiated in matter? steveh

'Do you have a substantive concern with UB’s argument?' A very pithy and highly amusing question to timothya, Eric. Probably because its appositeness is so stark. You swine! Just kidding, of course. Axel

Upright BiPed @ 142

Isn’t it odd that you have no problem illustrating that you know what materially arbitrary means in the second half of your comment, even as you question what it could possibly mean in the first.

What are you talking about? I did not question what material arbitrariness could possibly mean. I pointed out that material separateness does not entail arbitrariness. You have not responded to this.

@ 143: Also, the transcription of information (from the environment) into sensory input is based upon physical law – just as explained in the argument and ongoing comments.

So what part of the shadow scenario do you believe has been established as being arbitrary? Cheers CLAVDIVS

Also, the transcription of information (from the environment) into sensory input is based upon physical law - just as explained in the argument and ongoing comments. Upright BiPed

Clavdivs, Isn’t it odd that you have no problem illustrating that you know what materially arbitrary means in the second half of your comment, even as you question what it could possibly mean in the first. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed @ OP

3. ... If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

This part of the agument appears faulty. Material separateness does not entail arbitrariness. Taking steveh's example @ 5, a robber's shadow is materially separate from the robber, but the shadow is not arbitrary - it is based on physical laws. For all we know, the representation of the shadow in the optic nerve and brain is also not arbitrary but is based upon physical laws. Thus the arbitrariness that is critical to the argument is not satisfactorily established. Cheers CLAVDIVS

Hello Larry, The first object is a representation; an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent). The representation presents a material component to the system (i.e. it is a material piece of paper with discernable markings on it) but it also presents an arbitrary component (i.e. it is not the presentation of marks on a paper that evokes the response, but the arrangement of those marks). From causal standpoint, a representation evokes a response in a system, but does not determine what that response will be. The second object is a transfer protocol; an arrangement of matter which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representational arrangement and the effect it will evoke within the system. It is a systematic operational rule, instantiated in matter. The protocol allows the arbitrary component of the representational arrangement to evoke a response within a physically determined system, while preserving the arbitrary component of the representation. The protocol must be coordinated to the arbitrary component of the representation as well as the material production of the effect. The system therefore requires two material objects which operate as a formal system; i.e. recorded information cannot be transferred without the presence of both coordinated objects. From the standpoint of biology, it is an irreducibly complex system required prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution. Its origin will require the establishment of a semiotic state prior to the onset of organization via information. Upright BiPed

mahuna, DNA is a long chain of nucleic acids which carry information as a consequence of their order within the chain. Among other things, that sequence is used to provide information to the cellular machinery during protein synthesis (the construction of the proteins required for life). There are four different nucleic acids (cytosine, adenine, thymine, and guanine) which are repeated throughout the sequence, and each set of three nucleotides is a representation that evokes a specific response in the production of a specified protein. For instance the arrangement of C-T-A is a representation mapped to the addition of leucine to the protein being constructed. In other words, if the arrangement C-T-A should appear in the sequence when a protein is being produced, then leucine will be added next to that nascent protein. Obviously, the system has to operate with enough fidelity to facilitate those individual actions, and must be configured properly to result in that response from that representation. Upright BiPed

UBP@135, That answer doesn't work for me. I'll try to explain why. In the OP, point #7, you say this:

7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up.

So, you have laid out: (a) Two discrete arrangements of matter. (b) These "objects," these arrangements of matter, have a quality. (c ) This quality extends beyond their mere material make-up. My question to you was/is: What is this quality? Can you describe it more specifically? Following the piece I just quoted, you say this:

The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system.

Now, I read this as saying: (d) The first object is a representation. (e) The second object is a protocol. (f) Together, the two objects function as a formal system. But now it seems you're telling me that I misinterpreted. What you meant was: (d') The first quality is representation. (e') The second quality is protocol. (f') Together, the two qualities function as a system. If the latter part is really what you meant, I guess I don't see what the big deal is. Essentially, the conclusion is that some material things do stuff or can be used to stuff by other material things. What am I missing? LarTanner

UB, So anything can be identified as a representation (e.g., a picture of a whale) and all of the rest of the points of the argument still apply? In trying to sort out the mess of Technical Data, it was frequently discovered that the available data only made sense to the original manufacturer, and a 3rd Party (i.e., neither the original contractor nor the government owner) could not reproduce the part. The representation was close to worthless, and the usual consequence was a painful attempt by the new contractor to reverse engineer the part from an existing example. Tricky things like heat treatments to produce surface hardening were frequently missed, and the reproductions never worked as well as the original. Since I'm not a Biologist (although I can follow parts of what Behe says), my understanding is that encoding the description of a Thing as DNA and turning that encoding over to a cell mechanism that understands how to "open" the DNA and understands how to locate and manipulate components is a very special kind of representation. It's the rough equivalent of having a properly formatted file to feed to a SPECIFIC automated machining center, which has also been pre-stocked with the right range of bar stock, etc. But turning the same file over to a different vendor's machining center is likely to result in either a complete refusal to process the data or a very odd combination of cuts on the bar stock. At a higher level, having read "Rare Earth", it appears that somewhere there must be a representation of the star Sol and its Solar system. And that representation probably includes the assembly instructions, which assume a set of building mechanisms (e.g., Gravity). The same general representation might adequately describe other star systems, but the assembly includes some level of randomness (um, QA tolerances?). The randomness of the assembly means that the Solar System is quite different than more than 99% of all other attempts at assembly. If DNA worked that way, almost all attempts to use the representation would result in death. mahuna

Hello Mahuna, You have a very interesting perspective. However, the “completeness” or “quality” or “exactitude” of the representation is not germane to the argument. Upright BiPed

Hello Larry,

The bolded part strikes me as kind of “and then a miracle happened.” What is this quality we are talking about, especially concerning genetic information transfer/exchange?

There is nothing magical taking place Larry - perhaps “awe-inspiring”, but not magical. This is a purely material argument about observable phenomena. You ask ‘what are these qualities’, but those qualities were explained throughout the text, and then specified once again in the very next sentence following the one you bolded: ” The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system.” The justification of the terms, and well as the operation of both material objects, is explained within the argument. If you can narrow your question down where I can understand the impasse, I will be very happy to explain. Thanks! Upright BiPed

Joe, Ahh yes. I see that is Patrick’s claim over at TSZ. But then again, Patrick has a certain history of being, let us say, inconsistent with facts. Here is a simple example, taken specifically from this topic:

RB: May, 2012 “I assert (not suggest) that you do not understand entailment, and due to your failure to grasp entailment you have constructed an argument beset with a fatal logical flaw.” UB: June, 2012 “Bill, if a specific thing only exist under specific conditions, then does it existence entail the existence of those specific conditions? Or is that illogical?” RB: June, 2012: Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment.” … “Of course if the necessary and sufficient conditions of a phenomenon are present, then phenomenon is present…” Patrick: August, 2012 “Upright BiPed’s argument has been utterly destroyed logically”

You see, facts simply do not matter to Patrick. This, along with the denial of material evidence, is part of his master plan to save his family from the delusions of those who disagree with him. - - - - - - - - - - - I also see that Mark Frank has a question about #2 in the OP. He states:

[from the OP] #2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter. False – although exactly when it is false depends on what is meant by a representation. Suppose I want to inform someone that badgers regularly visit my garden. I can transfer this information in many ways 1) Writing them a letter telling them. This presumably falls into the category UB was expecting. 2) Showing them a footprint. This shows them the size and shape of the feet and thus informs them about at least this aspect of the animal. If they have background knowledge they may be able to learn more. Does a footprint count as a representation? 3) Getting them to observe the trail leading to a badger! Is the trail the representation? 4) Getting them to come along one night and see the badgers. Not sure what counts as the representation here

Okay, one at a time. #1. Writing a letter certainly involves representations instantiated in matter. That is what written letters and words are. #2. Simply pointing at a footprint does not transfer information. For that footprint (which is nothing more than the state of the ground after being stepped on) to become information, someone will have to see it and interpret the image. But it is not then a footprint traveling through the observer’s optical nerve; it is a representation of that image instantiated in a neural signal, which will be processed into a functional effect via a protocol within their visual cortex. #3. Same answer as #2 #4. Same answer as #2. Sensory input takes place through representations and protocols. Upright BiPed

A decade or 2 ago, I was involved in the development of STEP/PDES (Product Data Exchange Standard) and have continued in the business of creating Process Models (SADT) and Data Models. In each case, what is created is a representation of something (a data set, a standard process, a physical product), but in all but the most trivial cases, the model is not a COMPLETE representation of the something. The same it true for the older style collections of paper drawings and specifications that defined a Technical Data Package. The representations are intended to allow a competent technician (DBA, office manager, automated machining center) to produce an acceptance version of the thing within certain tolerances. See ISO 9000, CMMI, etc., etc. More generally, the Global Warming folks base all of their work on Weather Models, which attempt to represent global movement of heat, ocean currents, albido of dry land, etc., etc. The very best of this representations are crude and inaccurate. So the discussions are about which features of the Earth-Sun system a particular model gets closest to right. Instantiations (bringing into existence an instance of) of Process Models are especially tricky, since experienced and talented workers can produce acceptable versions of the intended outputs by following only the general features of the model. But the understanding I get is UB and others are assuming that the "representation" is a PERFECT and COMPLETE description of the thing AND it contains assembly instructions. The goal of STEP/PDES was to do that, but then the intention was also to produce a "neutral format" description, which did not assume the specific devices that would be used for instantiation. For example, assume a steel plate requires a feature described as a "through-going hole", which is different from a "depression" in that it completely penetrates the material. However, I can produce a through-going hole either by drilling straight through the material or by first creating a depression and then grinding off the underside, exposing the "hole". The result is the same, but I use different tools to get there. The same is true for data models. The logical model can contain details that are not directly implementable on some RDBMSs, and it's common for developers to enforce some of the required constraints in the application rather than the data base itself. Or more generally, I can represent a dinosaur with a toy dinosaur. My daughter can be complete satisfied with this representation, but many paleontologists might complain about its completeness and accuracy. So, I believe UB should state at the beginning that the representation under discussion is complete and highly accurate AND that there is a known means of instantiating the thing represented that uses the system of codes (including free text?) in which the representation is encoded. Of course the "known means" might only exist on Alpha Centauri. mahuna

Hello Larry, I will return very shortly to respond. Thanks Upright BiPed

I'm not a geneticist, but the non-genetic observations and reasoning seem OK to me. However (you knew it was coming) there certainly are places for clarification. For example, Step 7 says:

7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information. (emphasis added)

The bolded part strikes me as kind of "and then a miracle happened." What is this quality we are talking about, especially concerning genetic information transfer/exchange? In speech acts, the "objects" (to use UBP's term) get their qualities from the abitrariness of signifier-signified relationships and from grammar. In non-human contexts, I would imagine--but obviously, I don't know--that biology, chemistry, environment, and stochasticism may be among the factors which endow the representations and protocols their particular qualities. It seems to me that the quality UPB invokes is a critical part of what makes the overall argument interesting. So, if it has not come up before (sorry, I have not reviewed the earlier 129 responses, even though I did make a comment earlier), I would appreciate learning UPB's theory, as it were, of the specific quality as it relates in genetic information transfer. Excepting the qualities issue, I'm not sure I see the significance of the argument generally. That genetic processes are or could be semiotic seems par for the course in the universe. Everything is in communication with everything else, in a manner of speaking. Living systems are especially adept at communication--that is, at information exchange. Now, language is a bit of a different story. It's news when we have reason to believe different animals have real language use capabilities. "Real language" is definable, although some elements of the definition are controversial. If the argument of the OP were a language argument, I think that would be very exciting and much easier to assess on the surface. The argument of the OP, as is, is interesting and obviously the product of lots of thought and research. Is there a plan to expand the argument into a paper submission? LarTanner

Well TSZ claims to have refuted every one of UB's claims. And if bald assertions, misrepresentations and nonsense were refutations they would have a point. :razz: Joe

My argument will be displaced from the UD front page today. I appreciate UD posting it, and also the responses that came forward. No one provided a demonstration that the observations are false, or that the logic is flawed. Indeed quite the opposite, the observations are completely valid, and the logic is entirely coherent with regard to those observations. Genetic information transfer demonstrates a semiotic state, and any mechanism proposed to be the origin of that system must have the capacity to establish a semiotic state for two intractable reasons: 1) because the transfer of recorded information is logically impossible without it, and 2) that is the way we find it. This evidence demonstrates a central prediction of ID – that the genome is a semiotic process. It also demonstrates the most prolific example of irreducible complexity in the natural world. And also that, using Darwin’s own standard, evolution is incapable of establishing that process. Upright BiPed

UB: If your point is that the information in the genome exists without intent, that fact in and of itself would still not be germane to the observations of the transfer. […] If this is indeed the point you are wishing to make, then perhaps the only question would be how you determined that from the evidence. CR:As Popper pointed out in his book Objective Knowledge, knowledge is independent of belief. Popper imagines two scenarios where nearly all people on the planet are wiped out. In the first scenario all of our books (dead trees and electronic format) are wiped out as well. In the second, these books remain. In the case of the former, it might take millennia to rebuild, if at all. But in the latter this could be achieved in only a fraction of the time. So, knowledge is objective in the sense that it is independent of anyone’s belief.

Again, your comment does not impact the issue at hand. No matter how interesting you see Popper’s model of knowledge, it is simply non-responsive to the issue of the transfer of recorded information having a material foundation on which it must operate. If you feel otherwise, then make your case – and by that I mean make your SPECIFIC case demonstrating the impact on the inventory of the necessary and sufficient material conditions of recorded information transfer. This would take the form of “your inventory of necessary and sufficient conditions of TRI is incorrect because…” or “your conclusions from the transfer of recorded information do not follow from the premises because…”. Upright BiPed

critical rationalist: Well, now I understand better you terminology. So, you call "non-explanatory knowledge" what I (and others) would call "unguided generation of useful information in a system by random variation". OK, that's fine with me. Words are just words. But you may excuse my initial confusion, because usually, as far as I understand, the word "knowledge" implies some cosncious cognition. I wonder: do you believe that "non-explanatory knowledge" can explain (in the scientific sense) a system where digital coded, complex information is first stored, and then translated, by two completely different sets of code aware, complex procedures, like it happens in DNA protein genes? Just to know... By the way, I am happy to know that some school of thought exists that is called "critical rationalism". Now maybe we can get rid of all the old acritical rationalism that has been around for millennia :) (just joking) gpuccio

Chance Ratcliff: Thank you for your further contribution. I agree with all, except that I do not consider free will as part of the "category of qualia", but rather as an objective input form a transcendental self. But that has been discussed elsewhere some time ago, and it would take us too far :) Moreover, I am all for the objective existence of "qualia" (including blue), and would never call them "illusions". gpuccio

Gpuccio: Well, if the requisite knowledge is present, I would call that “implementation”, and not “adaptation”. If you write a code to implement an algorithm that you know, is that an “adaptation”? Please, clarify what you mean. If Charles Babbage had actually build his Analytical Engine, it would have been the first Turing complete computer. So, despite being completely mechanical in nature, it could have run any program runnable on even the latest Turing complete digital computers. While emulating the amount of storage and RAM in a modern day computer using punch cards would be impractical, it would be possible in principle. These cards would represent adaptations of matter. Modern day computers with magnetic media, SSD drives and electrons also represent adaptations of matter. If one varies these adaptations slightly, they serve this purpose less well, if even at all. CR: The origin of that knowledge is the origin of the system of nanobots. Gpuccio: I certainly agree with that. I suspect we're not quite in agreement in regards to the term "knowledge" and "origin", but this is progress none the less. Gpuccio: Knowledge is always “created” (your word!) in the consciousness of a conscious intelligent agent. Only conscious intelligent agents can “understand”, and therefore “know”. There is no other way. The same is true for the knowledge of the biological designer: it originated in the consciousness of the biological designer. First, in the sense that I'm using it, knowledge is actually created rather than being already present in experience or mechanically derived from it. Any theory of an organism's improvement raises the following question: how is the knowledge of how to make that improvement created? Was it already present in some form at the beginning? A theory that it was represents creationism. Did it just happen? If so, the theory represents spontaneous generation - such an example is found in Lamarckism, which assumed we still see simple creatures (such as mice) today because a continuous stream of simple creatures is being spontaneously generated. But both of these represent fundamental errors. Knowledge must first be conjectured and then tested. This is what Darwin's theory presented from the start. Genetic variation, in the form of conjecture, occurs independent of the problem to be solved. Then natural selection discards the variations that are less capable of causing themselves to be present in future generations. Second, there are two types of knowledge: explanatory and non-explanatory. While people can create both kinds of knowledge, only people can create explanatory knowledge in the form of explanatory theories. This is because, as universal explainers, only people can create explanations. People create explanatory knowledge when they intentionally conjecture an explanation for a specific problem, then test that explanation for errors. If the theory is found to be internally consistent, it can be tested via empirical observations. So, I'd agree that only people can create explanatory knowledge. However, conjectures made in the absence of a specific problem result in non-explanatory knowledge. Specifically, it's random in respect to any particular problem to solve. While my example is an imperfect analogy in the case of the genome (otherwise, it wouldn't be an analogy) it illustrates how non-explanatory knowledge can be created independent of any specific conscious problem to solved. Furthermore, being non-explanatory in nature, it's reach was significantly limited. This is in contrast to explanatory knowledge, which has significant and potentially infinite reach. Gpuccio: Your example is not clear. What do you mean by “rule of thumb”? For example, if I had a genetic condition, I wouldn't want my doctor to base my treatment on the mere logical possibility that changing just any genes in my genome could improve my condition. Rather, I'd want my treatment based on an explanation that specific genes play a hard to vary, specific role in my symptoms and that changing them in a particular way would have a beneficial impact. The former is a useful rule of thumb. The later is an explanatory theory. In the case of people, rules of thumb are not completely non-explanatory because they are based on uncontroversial background knowledge which is explanatory in nature. But this isn't the case in regards to the biosphere. gpuccio: Darwinism substitutes the role of consciousness with an artificail and ineffectice non conscious mechanism (natural selection) which can in no way explain what it should explain, least of all the coding and decoding of complex symbolic information in living systems, and the origic of that information. Darwinism is a theory of knowledge creation. Critical Rationalism is a epistemology that shares aspects of Darwinism. critical rationalist

UB: If your point is that the information in the genome exists without intent, that fact in and of itself would still not be germane to the observations of the transfer. […] If this is indeed the point you are wishing to make, then perhaps the only question would be how you determined that from the evidence. As Popper pointed out in his book Objective Knowledge, knowledge is independent of belief. Popper imagines two scenarios where nearly all people on the planet are wiped out. In the first scenario all of our books (dead trees and electronic format) are wiped out as well. In the second, these books remain. In the case of the former, it might take millennia to rebuild, if at all. But in the latter this could be achieved in only a fraction of the time. So, knowledge is objective in the sense that it is independent of anyone's belief. UB: If you’ve located the ultimate source of that [will to survive] and measured it by some means and found it to be without “intention”, I would sure like to see your data. If not, then I am not certain what impact your point has on the observations made here. Please see above. Non-explanatory knowledge is created when conjectures are made which are random in regards to any particular problem to solve. As such, your argument is parochial in that it does not make a distinction between these two kinds of knowledge. UB: I’ve looked over my argument and I don’t see the word “intent” anywhere in it. Which definition of arbitrary are you referring to that does not include will or intent? arbitrary based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system: his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary. • (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority: arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible. • Mathematics (of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value. ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense ‘dependent on one's will or pleasure, discretionary’): from Latin arbitrarius, from arbiter ‘judge, supreme ruler,’ perhaps influenced by French arbitraire . Does a king rule in a way that he does not intend to? Mealtimes were either random or occurred at intentionally chosen times. Or perhaps you simply mean arrangements of matter that are not identical? UB: While you are working on that, may I suggest that you try to approach the argument on its own terms? For instance, the word “knowledge” is not mentioned anywhere in the argument. Does the explanation which succeeded the idea that light traveled in a medium called "the ether" (Einstein's theory of general relatively) approach the argument on it's own terms? Does it use the word "the ether"? Nor is the term "photon" part of the original argument. Furthermore, protocols in Objective-C represent the knowledge of what methods an object implements. Drug protocols represent the knowledge of which medications to take on a particular schedule and at a particular dosage. When we attempt to learn a completely new, undocumented language, we conjecture what a word means, then take that guess seriously. Specifically, we assume it is correct and use it along with our best guesses about all other words for the purpose of creating sentences. We then test those sentences to see if they are internally consistent. If so, we then test them via observations by trying to communicate with others who speak that language. Errors are discarded and we repeat the process. Nor is it clear what you mean by "observing" the transfer of knowledge. When we observe something, we're doing so as conscious beings. This is unavoidable and uncontroversial. It seems that you're having difficulty taking yourself out of the equation. UB: In any case, what if we used the transfer of information in a fabric loom in order to control the patterns of thread woven into fabric. Would you then pick up the cloth and say “this is knowledge”? It seems like a rather loose term. First, do I normally pick up objects, such as a cloth, and refer to them as knowledge? No. But the origin of the knowledge of how to adapt the thread is the origin of the cloth. Isn't that the issue at hand? Second, a definition has been provided. You seem to be taking a reductionist approach in assuming That science must reductively explain everything. What do I mean by “knowledge”? I’m referring to information which when embedded in a storage medium tends to remain there and is consistent with Karl Popper’s definition that knowledge is independent of anyone’s belief. While they serve many other purposes as well, both brains and DNA act as storage mediums. critical rationalist

In the meanwhile, no opponents have shown that the logic of my argument is invalid, or that the premises are untrue. Upright BiPed

Gpuccio, Ahh, thanks for your response. I think its facinating that two people can come at a difficult issue from entirely different directions, and meet at the exact same place – sharing their own observations from along the way, using the same tools and langauge. I think its a good sign. In 2003, information ethicist Rafeal Capurro wrote a rather excellent paper entitled The Concept of Information. (I remember once seeing the paper billed as 'the state of the art'). He gives a very nice breakout of the history of the word, as well as the variety of difficuties in defining it over time. Then in a section on the relationship between scientifc terms and theories, Capurro writes “Following Chalmers, we propose that the scientific definitions of terms like information depend on what roles we give them in our theories; in other words, the type of methodological work they must do for us”. In the argument I'm presenting, the term 'information' is viewed solely from its impact on matter. That is the work it must do. From that perspective, what is found to be common (in that impact) among all instances of information is precidely what I am highlighting. At this point, I am prepared to view information as an arrangemet of matter that carries the form of a thing as a consequence of its arrangement. It is inseparable from its material representation because it is that representation that has the material impact. This is what I was hoping to illustrate by my example of a automatic light. A representation of form is used to produce unambiguous function in a system via a protocol instantiated in matter. From that perspective, this unique material signature is found in all communication throughout the living kingdom, as well as in the contrivances of intelligence, and in the material operation of the living cell. And it is found nowhere else. I think the bridge between our positions is a short trip. Instead of responding to your comments outright, I think I 'll let them set and enjoy them. Perhaps I'll jump back in later. Many thanks GP. The reasons why you are one of UD's favored contributors is obvious. Upright BiPed

Upright, thanks for your kindness in #112. It's good to be here, and it's a pleasure to read your posts. Chance Ratcliff

gpuccio RE #100 "So, in this scenario, probability is epistemological, and determinism is complete. There is no room for free will or free intervention (not, at least after the coin has been tossed)." Agreed. This is how I'm understanding epistemological chance. In this case, chance doesn't provide the ontology -- unknown variables do. "Quite frustrating, isn’t it?" That's the reason why strict philosophical materialism in science is inappropriate, imo. Let me say regarding free will, that I accept it in part because it is an immediate fact of direct experience. It could possibly be said that free will falls under the category of qualia. In this regard, "free will is an illusion" makes about as much sense as "blue is an illusion." ;-) "Quantum randomness is more appealing. If free intervention has to be a regular component of reality, what better interface? Consciousnes can certainly manipulate ontological randomness, and still probabilistic laws can be verified on large numbers. That is the beauty of probability. It allows room for designed order." Fascinating! This is something I've considered before in another context (divine intervention). The same set of dice roll outcomes, given different ordering, can produce varying results, for instance, in a craps game. I made the point a while back on another thread (and under a different name):

A property of randomness that is perhaps exploitable by a divine mind is the order of events in a random series. If, while playing at the craps table, I rolled 7, 11, 6, 6, 7, 4, 8, 9, 2, 12, 4, 7, the outcome from a monetary perspective would be entirely different than the series 2, 4, 7, 12, 8, 11, 6, 4, 7, 6, 9, 7, but statistically the same from the perspective of events in the series (especially if the winning streak is compensated by a losing streak at a nearby table) and simply insignificant as the number of trials increases.

https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/sigh-theologians-still-trying-to-save-darwinisms-soul/#comment-423342 The set if outcomes is the same, but the different ordering produces either wins or losses. I think your suggestion that a form of ontological randomness could provide an interface for mind is intriguing. "Now, I am not really sure that a quantum interface is the only way to implement free will into determinism. It is certainly an interesting possibility. But I am sure that our understanding of consciousness and of its modes of interaction with matter is still extremely partial. We will certainly understand more and better in the future, especially if science finally ackowledges that conciousness exists as a fundamental mode of reality, that it is not a product of matter, that it does interact with that other mode of reality we call matter, and that it can and must be part of any serious scientifical model of reality." Agreed. That consciousness is a fundamental pillar of reality is a possibility that should be embraced if we are to understand anything non-trivial about consciousness and intelligence in general. Thanks for your words in #119. It's nice to know that the paragraph made sense to somebody besides myself. ;-) Chance Ratcliff

Chance Ratcliff: This is just to say that I have really appreciated your post 117. What you think is very similar to what I think. Thank you. gpuccio

UB: I hope I can complete my thoughts now. In the last part of your post, I rather feel the need to ask you more detailed definitions, or clarifications. For instance, you speak about “the transfer of recorded information”. And still I would appreciate if you could give a more explicit definition of "information" in this context. That unlucky word, indeed, is often the origin of much misunderstanding. You say: "I am talking about the transfer from representation to effect which includes both law-based transcription and the arbitrary-driven result of translation.". If I understand well, "representation" here is the DNA gene, while "effect" is the functional protein. If that is the case, I agree. Transcription is a tranfer of information "law based", in the sense that it does not decode the meaning. Translation does. Although even transcription could never happen without a higly complex procedure. My point is, both transcription and translation are so complex that they must be designed. But translation is "code aware", while trancription is not. But we are anyway speaking of coded digital information here. OK, let's go on. You say: "There is a very straightforward reason for this. Both processes are required, as well as the preservation of the arbitrary and the production of the effect, in order to be sufficient to confirm an instance of TRI (which is the goal of the observations)." Well, I don't know if I understand well. Transcription is necessary in the cellular context, but in general the information could be directly decoded and translated in one step. What is the difference? My point is, what you call TRI, in the sense of a semiotic "signature", probably requires only: a) Some meaningful information that b) is recorded in some material system thorugh a symbolic, arbitrary code and c) some code aware procedure that can extract the original information and put it to use, either for the understanding of a conscious observer, or for the working of a functional machine. What's wrong in that? In that simple form, I certainly agree that TRI is present, and that it is a semiotic signature. I would only add, in traditional ID spirit, that we must also be sure that the system is complex enough (it is certainly specified), to affirm that it is a true consciously generated (designed) system. You say: "Of course, this perspective may (maybe not) only make sense if one first agrees that information is a unique thing which has a unique material foundation, and that it doesn’t just exist in everything as a matter of that thing existing itself, but must be brought into existence by some mechanism." Well, for me information ia not a self evident concept. I feel the need of specific definitions for each context. I have given a rather detailed definition: "That’s why I have used the term “objective information” to define the objective potentiality of a material system to evoke information in a conscious observer about something. The term “objective” is probably misleading: I don’t mean that information is really in the material system, but only that the material system can objectively be cognized in that way by conscious observers." According to that definition, I think I am consistent in saying that each material system has objective information about itself. We can certainly get useful information about a wood just by observing it form some high point. That information can be very useful to go through the wood. It is not "brought into existence" by any method. It is objective information, and it becomes true information when I cognize it through my senses and mind. You say: "For a thing to be information, it must first be transcribed into a representation." Why? I perceive the wood, and it is informatio to me. It is certainly tranformed into a conscious representation, but not "transcibed" into some other material system (except the photons, as we have already said). What I see is really the "shadow" of the wood in the photons. Now, the wood and the photons are probably designed by God, but that is not the point here. We are discussing a semiotic signature inside creation. Something appraochable by science in an empirical way. So, I can only conclude that the wood and the photons are information in the sense I have defined, but probably not in the sense that you would define. They certainly are not an example of digital coded information. So, I always come back to that. Digital coded information, and its transfer by code aware procedures, are the true semiotic signature. In that sense, with that precisation, I completely agree with your argument, always have and always will. Finally, about the last "problem". You say: "I don’t understand what I said that could have prompted your comment. In my argument, the transfer of information has the same material entailments whether it is analog or digital." Well, I believe I was prompted to that comment from this statement you made in post 12: "Seeing a robber’s shadow requires vision. If you see a shadow, it is not then a shadow traveling through your optical nerve. It is a material representation of that image which will be translated into a functional effect by a protocol in your visual cortex." IOWs, you are invoking the protocols of vision to say that they realize here the transfer of information. OK, you don't refer to "digital"; I interpreted it that way, because you speak of protocols in the neurological system, and those are probably digital protocols. My objection is that we cannot invoke what happens in our neurological system: that is the same for any perception we have from nature. Any act of perception implies protocols, digital transcriptions, and many other things in our body. That's not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the objective transfer of information in nature. In that sense, I don't see how we can deny that objective information is transferred from the robbers to their shadow, or to their tracks. That does not require a procedure, out of the laws of physics, and is not, IMO, a semiotic signature. But it is a transfer of information just the same. So, I believe, as already said, that we must qualify very well the information that is transferred, and how it is transferred, if we want to define it as a semiotic signature. The best way to do that is to limit our discussion to the transfer of digital coded information. That is certainly a semiotic signature. In the case of analof transfer, the semiotic signature can be affirmed, IMO, only if the transfer procedure is so complex that it must have been designed (a classical, non digital camera would be, I think, a good example). So, to sum up, muy point is: a) Objective information can be trasferred fromn one material system to another one by physical laws. That does not require any special procedure, the information is never digitally coded, it is not a semiotic signature, and there is no need for a designer. b) Analog information can be transferred form a physical system to another one through complex, designed procedures. If the procedure is complex enough that we can safely infer design, this kind of transfer is a semiotic signature, but there is no coding. c) Digital coded information always requires an arbutrary logical code, a code aware procedure for storing information, and a code aware procedure to decode it. It is always a semiotic signature and, except for possible very trivial pseudoexamples (of which, however, I am not aware), it always implies a conscious designer. Well, that was not easy. But I have tried to be as open and detailed as possible, as you definitely deserve. gpuccio

Stephen RE: #99, Yes I suppose that if chance is causal, then it's problematic. And for theological reasons, I too prefer an understanding of nature that allows for every detail to be determined, by both the established mechanisms of physics and chemistry, and the governance of deity over contingency. So I would tend toward rating nature very low on the freedom scale. But I think it's possible that chaotic ordering of systems at the quantum level might be necessary in some respect. Would reality be fundamentally different if electron positions proceeded in specified order? I don't know. Randomness certainly has its uses, and its presence can even produce a level of probabilistic reliability in computer systems (I'm thinking of the quick sort algorithm). It's also useful in computer security and simulations. There may be something about the operation of the current physical and spiritual reality that depends upon chaos as a veil of sorts, but I'm wandering into strange territory. So I'm definitely not big on ontological chance, but I don't rule out that it may itself be an engineered mechanism. Chance Ratcliff

UB: So, to sum up what I have said until now, I use conscious agents and observers in my reasonings not because I just like to do that, but nevìcause I believe that no complete and consistent reasoning about design and meaningful information can be made otherwise. THat conviction of mine is reinforced by the fact that any time my ID friends try to do that, to "get rid" of the uncomfortable conscious entity for the sake of some "objectivity" in the reasoning, their reasoning, however good, suffers at some level. THat's what I think happens also in your case. I will try to explain why. I would also like to add that there is a reason, IMO, why Shannon has brilliantly developed the only quantitative theory we have about the objective transfer of information, but he has done that without any reference to "meaningful information". It's because you cannot even define "meaningful information" objectively. Try, and you will see what I mean. You need at least a conscious observer to understand and recognize the meaning. Or the function, which is another form of meaning. Meaning and function do not exist objectively and, even when they are embedded in a material system, they cannot be demontrated or defined by any formal property without the help of a "conscious revealer" of meaning and function. Even in the theory of CSI, you can only objectively measure complexity, which is a Shannon-like concept, but you need a conscious judgement to assess function or meaning. IMO, even Dembski has tried to avoid some non conscious dependent approach to his concept of CSI, relying on objective formal definitions, and I am not sure that has really helped his case. The truth is, relying on a conscious observer to assess meaning and function makes the discourse about information and design very simple and natural. Why shouldn't we do that? Conscious observers are an objective resource in nature. We are discussing design here. Design cannot be defined without using the concept of a conscious agent (I know many have tried, but IMO they have all failed). So, why not do the right thing? When we refuse to include conscious entities in our argumnents about reality, we are only accepting the materialists' reductionism, a reductionism that will always prevent them from understanding reality, because objective reality includes consciousness. I have to stop here. I hope I can go on later in the day. gpuccio

UB: First of all, thank you for the very kind personal words. I can only say that I could not appreciate more both your depth of thought and your lovable character. Let's go to the content of your post. I must say that, as usual, I agree with almost all that you say. But there is something that remains slightly different between our positions, so I will do some furhter effort to understand what it is: 1) I would say that I can fully agree with what you say uyp to the phrase "I’d like to make a comment about your 5 and 6". But, to avoid confusion in the following discussion, I want to emphasize just from the beginning one point which is perhaps the main difficulty here. You quote my statement that: "if we use “information” in the sense of the ultimate conscious representation, including cognition and feeling, that only happens in a conscious agent." But, if I understand well, your discourse does its best to avoid reference to the conscious observer, to be more "objective". Now, with all the repsect for your try, that is where I believe you can't succeed, not for lack of ability or intent, but because I believe nobody can succeed in doing that. My firm conviction is that a series of concepts arise only, and I insist only, in consciousness. We try to use them for objective matter because we are so accustomed to using them that we beileve they can exist by themselves. But that is not so. That's why, in my reasonings, you will always find some reference to "a conscious designer" or "a conscious observer", be it only as a revealer of some property in matter. For instance, let's consider your very clear example of the lighting system. Everything is fine there, but: what do you mean by "representation" and "effect"? "Representation" is something I really don't know how you can define withour the help of a conscious observer. And "effect" is too broad a term, any effect of a cause is an effect. I believe you mean "function". But again, you cannot define "function" without the help of a conscious observer, that understands intent, in the reasoning. Having made this premise, I will stop a moment and take again the argument in my next post. gpuccio

UB @113. Agreed. I was attempting to get things back on track and keep the discussion from going down the Shannon rabbit hole, which is (for the most part) irrelevant to the kind of functional information -- meaning, as you say -- we are interested in here. Eric Anderson

Hi Eric, hope all is well with you.

But of course Shannon information is largely unhelpful as a concept for understanding functional information . . .

Agreed. But if these observations are correct, then "meaning" - that indispensible facet of functional information - can be confirmed to have been transferred. Upright BiPed

Glad you're here Chance, and glad you stuck around after you started commenting. Upright BiPed

Joe I wouldn't even begin to deny that information is it own phenomenon. But it has to have a medium as far as I can tell. Yup. Upright BiPed

Thanks KF, I'm gonna come down and do a little surf fishing with you. Smoked redfish, garlic, and butter sounds good to me. I hope they let me bring a little mesquite on the trip out. ;) Upright BiPed

Hey Mung, Perhaps I am completely mistaken, or perhaps I just didn't read enough for context - but I thought I saw you say somewhere that I wasn't claiming the genetic system was a semiotic system. But the use of "representations and rules in a process" is the very definition of a semiotic system, and that is my claim. :) Upright BiPed

Stephen, Your comments in 71 are an unexpected honor for me. Thank you very much. Upright BiPed

steveh, I hope that I have satisfactorily addressed your 70 in my post to GP just above. Upright BiPed

[GP, sorry about the length] Hello GP, I apologize for the extended delay. I’d like to say upfront that your input is always instructive and valuable. One of the things that stand out to me in reading your posts is that you are fearless in addressing some of the larger issues that peel off from the direct observations. You have the intellectual and technical capacity to do so and you never shrink from the discussion. I have seen opponents basically challenge you to go beyond the principal stages of design thinking and move into deeper second and third round observations, and you never disappoint, nor do you relax from a disciplined line of thought. It is very admirable. As for myself, I seem to always be going the other direction. In my conversations with materialists on these issues, is has generally been their desire to expand the discussion as quickly as possible and as much as possible so that the observations themselves are lost in the minutia and the (as yet) unknown. It’s a standard tactic. In return, I am constantly trying to narrow the discussion back to the observables and what is already known about them. There are mountain goats on various ranges in the world that spend a great portion of their lives on the treacherous vertical surfaces of mountains doing things that would leave less capable animals frozen in fear. They move around with ease on the very edge of certain death. If the question is asked do they have “knowledge” of how to do what they are doing, then perhaps it would be hard to argue that they don’t, because they are doing it. But if the question is asked do they “fear” a misstep - then I have no idea how to address that question. These are all interesting questions (such as the question above regarding “intent”), but they are the things I try to remove from the conversation because they have no bearing on the material transfer of information; the specific issue at hand. That is the very point of the argument I have tried to present – to remove the fog and observe the transfer from strictly a material perspective, and to ask “are these observations correct” and “does this make a coherent material explanation”, and perhaps even to ask “could it be any other way”. Having said that I‘d like to address your comments, and I hope that my response isn’t too scattered. I have re-read your comments at #69 as well as your further comments since that posting. I seem to be having a difficult time knowing exactly where to step back in. In your 69-1, you say that you agree with me if “we use “information” in the sense of the ultimate conscious representation, including cognition and feeling, that only happens in a conscious agent.” My purpose in this argument, again, is to reduce the observations down to nothing but the material exchange of the information or specifically, the exchange of material representation to material effect . With that in mind, I would want to test the edges of your comment, and ask you to consider the following: Let us say that I have a light I want to automatically turn itself on at dusk, and then off again at dawn. To accomplish this I will have to give the lighting system the ability to act upon information if I want it to be self-directed, and will necessarily need to give it the capacity to take a measurement. I will do so by using a basic photocell, which is simply an element that allows electricity to flow through it went ambient light energy is available, but stops the flow of electricity when it is in darkness. I will then take this photocell and wire it to a (normally-closed) relay within a control circuit. When the daylight hits the photocell it will allow electricity to pass through the element and power the relay into an open position – turning the light off during the day. When the sun then goes down, the photocell’s element will stop the electricity from flowing to the relay and it will return to its normally-closed position, turning the light on again until the next sunrise. What I have done is use the material properties of a photocell (simply following physical law) to generate a measurement of daylight, and then used that as a representation to inform a protocol (the control/relay configuration), which is capable of translating the input of that representation into unambiguous function. Certainly it can be argued that I (as a conscious agent with purpose) am indispensible to this contrivance, and certainly I would be required in order to explain its origin. But I am not indispensable to its operation, and should my ultimate requirement as an agent somehow be in question, the argument that follows would have to find a signature of my involvement within that material operation. So if it should come to pass that objects such as photocells and relays and wires and light bulbs and sockets are thought to be explained by some mechanism other than myself, then my signature of involvement, if it can be found, must be evident in what is observed in the operation of the system. I submit that signature is the presence of TRI as evidenced by its four physical entailments: a) a representation which is arbitrary to the effect it will evoke in the system, b) a protocol capable of establishing what effect that representation will produce, c) the preservation of the arbitrary nature of the representation, and d) the production of unambiguous function from that arbitrary representation. However, that is not the argument I am making here. Instead I stop short in order to force the issue; to first establish among the opponents of ID that the information transfer in the genome IS semiotic; it DOES rely on the use of arbitrary representations and protocols, and it MUST include these things in order to exist. Not one single materialist has been able to demonstrate otherwise. As expected, they simply try to change the subject. Approaching genetic sequences as being true recorded information is an inescapable necessity of conducting research, but that approach is matched only by the discipline-wide denial of what that fact actually entails. This stands to reason because by Darwin’s own standard, evolution cannot be the source of the system. Materialists would hardly want to highlight that fact in their research, and they are prepared to delude themselves and all other people in order to avoid it. In fact, the final conclusion of this Semiotic Argument is that a) genetic information observably demonstrates a semiotic system, and b) it therefore will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state. Notice that there is no stipulation that the mechanism must be a purposeful entity of any kind – only that it must be able to create what is materially observed to exist. Even that is too much for them to swallow. They simply refuse coherent material evidence. I’d like to make a comment about your 5 and 6. One thing that wasn’t made explicit in the OP text is exactly what I include when I say “the transfer of recorded information”. I think this has resulted in a lack of clarity on my part so I would like to explain. I am talking about the transfer from representation to effect which includes both law-based transcription and the arbitrary-driven result of translation. There is a very straightforward reason for this. Both processes are required, as well as the preservation of the arbitrary and the production of the effect, in order to be sufficient to confirm an instance of TRI (which is the goal of the observations). For instance: In a previous debate I was told that information could be transferred without a protocol, and the pressing of a vinyl record was used as an example. Hot vinyl, a pressing plate with analog grooves on it, and voila; information is transferred without a protocol. In this previous conversation it was already made clear that I was talking about the transfer of representation-to-effect (including both transcription and translation) but this example was offered as an attempt to ignore that fact. The same claim was made with the example of photons hitting the eye. Neither of these cases are a transfer from representation to effect. One is an example of information being copied (lawfully transcribed from one medium to another) and the other is simply the sensory perception of the environment (lawfully transcribed from one medium to another). Neither has the slightest capacity to produce their end effect. Of course, this perspective may (maybe not) only make sense if one first agrees that information is a unique thing which has a unique material foundation, and that it doesn’t just exist in everything as a matter of that thing existing itself, but must be brought into existence by some mechanism. There is not information “in” anything; there is information that can be created “about” anything. For a thing to be information, it must first be transcribed into a representation. If that is not true, then we have emptied the term “information” of all its content, and we’ll need a new word to describe those things that are not just informative because they exist, but because they contain form about something as a matter of their arrangement. What use to be 'a book of text' was considered information, suddenly a book of empty pages is information and a book of text is something else. What was gained? I don’t believe it was clarity, not at least from a purely material perspective. And in the end, it is a material requirement in order to confirm an instance of TRI anyway. I am prepared to learn and adapt because I want the argument to be as materially coherent as possible, and your counsel would be very much appreciated in that regard. At this point though, I simply do not see it as an improvement. “Information in everything” puts the observer or mechanism in the process, and at that point it is already transcribed. My last comment will be my shortest because it is obviously a simple misunderstanding. Oddly enough, it may once again be tied (like connective tissue) to the information-in-everything theme. You say “I would like to comment on your argument that any type of information, in the end, must be transferred in digital form to the conscious perceiver” Here I am simply stumped. I don’t understand what I said that could have prompted your comment. In my argument, the transfer of information has the same material entailments whether it is analog or digital. But I certainly agree that (in the end) we are most interested in the observations of genetic information - which is entirely digital. This fact seriously narrows any mechanism which might be proposed as a demonstrable origin of such information. Like other digital formats, it is a format with the unique capacity to contain any type of information. Upright BiPed

KF: Hi! So good to be with you too :) gpuccio

UB 67:

To argue against this observation is to say that information can exist in a material universe without a medium of matter or energy.

Can matter and energy exist in a material universe without information? Lest we forget:

"Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that disregards this, will not survive one day"-Norbert Weiner

Joe

Hello All I am now freed up, and will be respondind soon. Thanks! Upright BiPed

Steve & GP: It is so good to see you both contributing in an excellent thread headed by a first class post by UB. I just thought it important to say that. As you both know I am partial to a two-tier cybernetic controller model by Derek Smith, and hear with interest the suggestion that mind may influence states in neural nets through a quantum process. Again, great to see you both in actin like the good old days. KF kairosfocus

Stephen: I have read your 99 after posting my 100. Your points are, obviously, very interesting. I offer some personal thought, in complete respect for your position. Yes, I am probably a bit less a rationalist than you are, but I don't think we disagree so much. When I admit (and I am not really sure of that) that quantum probability could be ontological, I have no intention to deny the power of reason or of the cause and effect link. QM asks us to think in some different and apparently strange way, but it is no supporter of epistemological anarchy at all. Indeed, scientific previsions made by QM, including its probabilistic part, are among the most precise ever known in science. The point is not that "they behave that way for no reason at all". The point is that reality can obey laws of various forms, and not necessarily of a traditional deterministic form. The same reason that allows us to understand a deterministic system allows us to understand a quantum probabilistic system. It is cognition just the same. And I agree with you that "no effect can occur without a cause". But I do believe that a cause can take forms very different from our traditional idea of a cause. After all, speaking between us who believe in God, I believe that God is the ultimate cause of all that exists. And I don't think that our reason can really, fully understand God. gpuccio

Chance Ratcliff: Interesting thoughts! (and, I hope, purposeful :) ) Well, I would say... In classical mechanics, we usually assume strong determinism. Maybe that is not really true, but let's reason in a conventional way. So, a coin is tossed, and the usual view is that the final outcome is completely determined by the laws of mechanics. We don't know all the hidden variables (exact positon at start, exact strength and direction of forces, and so on). We just observe that, if we toss the coin 1000 times, we have about 0.5 probability for each outcome. So we use a very simple probabilistic model to describe the system. So, in this scenario, probability is epistemological, and determinism is complete. There is no room for free will or free intervention (not, at least after the coin has been tossed). What about the collapse of wave function (if it really exists)? Again, let's reason in a classical way, adhering to the Copenaghen interpretation. So, the wave function evolves deterministically, and as you say, it " describes the range of possible values and their respective probabilities". Whne it collapses, we have a dicrete outcome. We are playing Bohr at present, so let's say that the specific outcome is not determined by hidden variable. The specific outcome is in accord to "ontological probability", some mysterious property of the whole system of quantum world. Again, according to QM, the outcome is really random, so again we have no room form free will etc. So, from these two classical views, we have either: 1) A classical world, completely governed by stricy determinism or: 2) A QM world, completely governed by a mix of determinism and ontological randomness. Quite frustrating, isn't it? But, obviously, there are those (including me) who believe that conscious agents exist, and that they are endowed with free will, intention and understanding. The problem is, how does free will from a conscious agent express itself in a world governed by determinism or randomness? (We obviously don't take seriously the position of comnpatibilists, who like to believe that determinism and/or randomness are in some strange way free will...) Now, strici determinism is a very difficult environment for the intervention of free will. The difficulty has been known to philosophers for centuries: if you have a series of events completely determined, any free intervention woul be an "anomaly", an interruption of the cascade of causes and effects. A dualism of nature and miracles, not too satisfying nor elegant. Quantum randomness is more appealing. If free intervention has to be a regular component of reality, what better interface? Consciousnes can certainly manipulate ontological randomness, and still probabilistic laws can be verified on large numbers. That is the beauty of probability. It allows room for designed order. IDists know very well how any specific deck of cards is equally improbable. The deck of cards arguments has been used many times against ID, in an astonishing variety of repeated idiocy. IDists know very well, however (but darwinists seem not to understand), that although when we shuffle a deck of cards an improbable outcome becomes real, a specific, ordered outcome will never come out. It's a simple concept, yet difficult to understand for many out there. So, what if consciousness could manipulate quntum randomness so that specific ordered outcomes become real at specific times? That would not violate the probabilistic laws: after all, those outcomes are as improbable as any other outcome. But they would be freely designed, and not random. The point is, our individual human consciousness seems able to do exactly that with the cells of our nervous system. That's how we express our free will in a deterministic, macroscopic world. Probably thorugh a QM interface at cellular level. And some other consciousness could do the same with the components of living beings, and realize design and information input in an apparently random system of variation. Because meaningful and functional arrangements are not necesserily formally different from completely random ones. Only a conscious agent, capable of understanding, representation, feeling and intent, can recognize the meaning, the function, in the midst of apparent randomness. We know that the sequence of the DNA gene for myoglobin is functional, because we see and understand the function. But objectively, it is not formally very different from a random sequence of the same length. For a non conscious nature (or, maybe, for darwinists) there is no difference there. So, we come back to your three scenarios: "The random factor, the exact position of a particle at a specific point in time, is either: 1) mechanistically determined; 2) purposefully determined; 3) determined *by* chance, which is ontological chance strongly defined (the “causal” chance)." I would say that a traditional view of the non quantum world, which ignores consciousness, would support only 1). A traditional view of QM is restricted to 1) and 3). But a complete view of reality, which refuses to ignore one of its most important components, consciousness, must necessarily include 2). Now, I am not really sure that a quantum interface is the only way to implement free will into determinism. It is certainly an interesting possibility. But I am sure that our understanding of consciousness and of its modes of interaction with matter is still extremely partial. We will certainly understand more and better in the future, especially if science finally ackowledges that conciousness exists as a fundamental mode of reality, that it is not a product of matter, that it does interact with that other mode of reality we call matter, and that it can and must be part of any serious scientifical model of reality. gpuccio

GPuccio @ Chance, You both make some interesting points. If we think about the possibilities of nature’s movement along a continuum from 1 to 10, with total determinism (no freedom whatsoever: the outcome was completely pre-ordained) on one side [1) and total freedom (the final outcome could have been anything at all) [10], I lean a bit more toward the former view simply because of my theological preferences and my understanding of reason’s rules. My inclination is to think that nature has little or no freedom [score it at 1 or 2] because it seems to me that the Creator knew and arranged for the final outcome of his creative process in exacting and precise terms, or as Einstein might put it, making it anything but a game of dice. Frankly, I laugh when Theistic Evolutionists argue that God allowed the universe the freedom to “create itself.” I would place the Biologos mentality at about a [7] or however much of nature’s freedom is required to rationalize Darwin’s accident producing paradigm. I am speculating that both of you might venture a score of about [2 or 3], allowing for a bit more freedom than myself, perhaps paying tribute to the conclusions of most modern expositors of quantum dynamics. On this matter, I am with the minority opinion, though I am open to reasoned objections from the majority. My view, though, is that the mainstream interpretation is, too often, informed by the dubious assumption that effects can occur without causes at the quantum level, confusing the idea of unpredictability with the idea of causality. It is one thing to say that quantum events behave in a certain way for no “apparent” reason. It is quite another thing so say that they behave that way for no reason at all. I find no humility and much arrogance in that latter proposition. On the other hand, I don’t think it requires much arrogance on my part to say that no effect can occur without a cause. If I am wrong about in that assumption, science is finished anyway. In keeping with that point, I often wonder if some of these modern interpretations might even result from an attempt to link quantum mechanics with eastern mysticism or some other means of escaping from reason’s non-negotiable rules. Without a sound metaphysical foundation, what is the point? I hearken back now to Niels Bohr who once said, “A great truth is a truth of which the contrary is also truth.” Please! It may be true that there is no genius without a mixture of madness, but we must recognize the madness when it asserts itself. In truth, I even hesitate to allow for a [2] rather than a [1]. If anything at all can be a product of chance, then it seems to me that we have opened the door to the argument that something can come from nothing. What do you gentlemen think? StephenB

gpuccio, some "random" thoughs ;-) with regard to epistemological chance, I can't escape the notion that an ontology is always implied. However the ontology is either deterministic or its not. Perhaps your #95 is not entirely clear to me, but you appear to be making room for an ontology that is purposefully intended, as opposed to one that is mechanistically determined. This is appropriate, imo. In either case, it seems to me that epistemological chance is the measure of ignorance about the cause, regardless of whether the cause is deterministic or intentionally directed. So it appears that the distinction is not between epistemological and ontological chance, but between varieties of chance's ontology. With regard to that ontology, we have a wave function describing the range of possible values and their respective probabilities; and then we have the discrete outcomes. The random factor, the exact position of a particle at a specific point in time, is either: 1) mechanistically determined; 2) purposefully determined; 3) determined *by* chance, which is ontological chance strongly defined (the "causal" chance). I guess in all that rambling I'm trying to suggest that epistemological chance employs a second option, purposeful intention, as a causal factor. Chance Ratcliff

Barry, this is exactly what is needed: to drive home the logic, again and again and again. Unfortunately, I think this will be too conceptual for them to accept. If it's not 2 + 2 = 4, they'll find an irrelevant and indeed inane by-road to go down. But still, it's the only way at present. Axel

Mung: 1) You say: Anything involving probability is, by definition, epistemological You are certainly right if we are speaking of traditionalo probability, in classical physics. Unfortunately, the role of probability in quantum nechanics is not so well understood, and is still an unsolved issue. Indeed, different "philosophical" interpretations of QM exist, and none of them is necessarily true. To sum it up as I understand it, QM is essentially deterministic (like classical mechanichs) as long as it describes reality in terms of "wave functions". A wave function evolves in a strictly deterministic way. Until... it "collapses". The wave funtion collapse, which corresponds more or less to some interaction (such as measurement) with the wave function, is essentially probabilistic. Einstein, who never accepted QM as a truly new paradigm, believed that we unbderstood things that way only because we were not aware of all the "hidden variables". If that were true, the probability of the wave function collapse would be epistemological, just as in classical physics. But most interpretations of QM believe that the probability implied is in some way essential, or "ontological". The classical Copenaghen interpretation, Bohr's interpretation, certainly affirms that. For a simple sum up, you can look at the table in this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics 2) You say: There is no information “out there.” Is the photon carrying information about the Sun, or is it carrying information about the Tree, or is it carrying information about what is being obscured by the tree? I absolutely agree with you, as should be clear form waht I have posted. Information, in the measure that it requires a cognitive act of representation and interpretation and understanding, only exists in conscious beings. It is a property of consciousness. That's why I have used the term "objective information" to define the objective potentiality of a material system to evoke information in a cosncious observer about something. The term "objective" is probably misleading: I don't mean that information is really in the material system, but only that the material system can objectively be cognized in that way by conscious observers. I believe that, in that sense, "objective information" can be evaluated and discussed. So, to sum up what I have sais in my previous posts in the light of that clarification: a) A tree, like any object, always has objective information about itself, because conscious observers can cognize it. That is trivial, but true. b) A shadow, or photons, or tracks, have objective information not only about themselves (we can cognize them as shadows, photons or tracks), but also about other, distinct physical systems (the object that cast the shadow or generated the tracks, the objects with which the photons interacted). We can objectively derive information about disctinct physycal realities from those systems. And we do. But the point is, in all those cases the link between A and B, between the shadow and the object, can be completely understood in terms of physical laws. And the physical laws are not arbitrary, at least to us. c) The history of England cannot be derived from a book about it only by knowledge of physical laws. The sequence of myoglobin cannot be derived from its DNA gene only by knowledge of physical laws. The function of a software cannot be derived from the stored seqeunce of 0s and 1s only by knowledge of physical laws. Those physical systems (the book, the gene, the stored software) certainly bear the information about other physical realities (the hystory of England, the protein Myoglobin, the working of the software), but to understand the information we need to be aware of a symbolic, arbitrary logical code that in each case has been used in storing the information in those physical systems. A conscious observer who cannot read, or does not know english, derives little information from the book, and certainly not knowledge of the history of England. Now, I believe that english language in no way can be derived from universal physical laws. Nor can the genetic code, or the binary code and informational structure by which some software is written. In all those cases, and similar cases, we can say that objective information about something is present in the system, but that perceiving that information, understanding it, requires the knowledge of some specific arbitrary code (what UB calls "the procedure"). It is trivial, but interesting, that knowledge of the code is necessary at two different moments: when a conscious designer writes the information (coding procedure) and when a conscious observer has to understand it (decoding procedure). It is important to observe also that even the simple use of the information by some non conscious machine requires knowledge of the code (not in the sense of conscious knowledge, but in the sense of knowledge implemented in the decoding machine). That is exactly the case for the translation apparatus in the cell. It is not a conscious observer, therefore it does not understand or know anything. But it has been designed with a definite implementation of the genetic code (for example, in the sequences of the 20 synthetases), and therefore it can decode and use the information in the genes. gpuccio

StephenB and Chance Ratcliff: I essentially agree with how Chance has put it: I am agnostic too, at present. But, just to say something more, if we accept a "traditional" interpretation of QM, "ontological" would probably be the case. I am afraid that the "epistemological" interpretation sounds more or less like supporting Einstein's view of hidden variables, which is definitely not very much alive (although not completely dead), and which after all I would not embrace, because it would imply again complete determinism in nature. But it is absolutely possible that an "ontological" interpretation is in reality only a partial understanding. Given the importance of the problem for the question of the material/spiritual interface, I believe we should remain humbly openminded about the matter. gpuccio

Thanks StephenB. On reflection I'm not sure that "ambivalent" was an accurate description of my views. Perhaps "agnostic" would be more appropriate in that context. I tend toward the view that all chance is a measure of ignorance about definite outcomes. However with regard to the quantum realm, I've no awareness of any causes for specific outcomes. With dice rolls and such, causal factors are at least intuitively grasped. Chance Ratcliff

Chance Radcliff @92, that was a nice way of putting it. StephenB

What is the difference between “Ontological Chance” and “Epistemological Chance”?

As I understand it, epistemological chance is a measure of ignorance about outcomes, measured by discrete probabilities -- such as the outcome of a dice roll, which is ontologically determined but unpredictable apart from a distribution of values. Ontological chance would be causal, and it's debatable whether that category exists. Some would suggest that quantum realities employ ontological chance, but I'm rather ambivalent about it myself. Chance Ratcliff

What is the difference between "Ontological Chance" and "Epistemological Chance"? Mung

GPuccio, thanks again for your comments. As usual, the depth of your knowledge and judgment shines through. Concerning your question on quantum mechanics (ontological chance or epistemological chance), I cast my vote for epistemological chance. StephenB

gpuccio:

Well, according to my views, as I have expressed them, the photons transmitting the information are of the “shadow like” category.

There is no information "out there." Is the photon carrying information about the Sun, or is it carrying information about the Tree, or is it carrying information about what is being obscured by the tree? Mung

gpuccio, Anything involving probability is, by definition, epistemological. Mung

ok, something was lost in my previous post. iirc, I was asking about the WHERENESS of information. Mung

UPB:

Mung and I have disagreements...

Whilst I appreciate women for their mind. So in an attempt to recall and summarize. Are our disagreements, as far as you are concerned, limited to the of information? ME: Information, absent mind, is meaningless, therefore it is not information. Where else does "aboutness" come from? Mung

AARGHH!!! ok, so shoot me. timothya:

Your point is pretty much what I have being trying to say.

No, it isn't. It's the exact opposite of what you have been trying to say. You say it's determined AFTER THE FACT. POST. He says it is PRE-determined. You say it is NOT pre-determined. Mung

timothya, I'm more interested in other conversations here than in trying to ascertain why you think a non-deterministic process can determine an outcome, but not until the undetermined outcome has actually occurred, at which time it becomes determined. Mung

There's 10 steps in the OP. I have it on good authority that UBP cannot count to ten. Mung

LarTanner: But of course Shannon information is largely unhelpful as a concept for understanding functional information . . . DNA isn't so much a communication system (although there may be some aspects of DNA that would hint at that), as it is an information repository -- a database primarily. The communication system is the whole enchilada: the code, the repository (DNA), the locators, the readers, the translators, all working together toward an end . . . Eric Anderson

LarTanner:

DNA in this account is a communication system such as Claude Shannon described in 1948/9, and so it therefore should be able to be characterized mathematically.

Yes, 4 possible nucleotides = 2^2 = 2 bits of information (carrying capacity) for each nucleotide. Each codon = 3 nucleotides = 6 bits. 64 possible codon combinations that map to either an amino acid or a STOP (command) = 2^6 = 6 bits of information per amino acid. Joe

Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly, can be encoded with information in its 'infinite dimensional' state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a '1 or 0' state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Moreover, consciousness is found to precede the collapse of the wavefunction of the photon to its uncertain particle state. Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon??? With the refutation of the materialistic 'hidden variable' argument and with the patent absurdity of the materialistic 'Many-Worlds' hypothesis, then I can only think of one sufficient explanation for infinite dimensional quantum wave collapse to single bit photon;

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. Psalm 118:27 God is the LORD, who hath shown us light:,,, Job 38:19 "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. Toby Mac (In The Light) - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_MpGRQRrP0

Further notes:

Fine Tuning Of Universal Constants, Particularly Light – Walter Bradley – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491552 Fine Tuning Of Light to the Atmosphere, to Biological Life, and to Water – graphs https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMTljaGh4MmdnOQ Privileged Planet: 1 in 10^24 Extreme Fine Tuning of Light for Life and Scientific Discovery - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/7715887

bornagain77

as to:

The point is that they (photons) are not coded according to an arbitrary code (unless you consider the basic laws of nature a code, but it would be difficult to consider it arbitrary, except maybe for the Creator :) ).

Not to comment on the word arbitrary, or code, or any of the other words, but only as to a little more definition relating photons to God:

Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182 Wave function Excerpt “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf 3D to 4D shift - Carl Sagan - video with notes Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS1mwEV9wA Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (observed, and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result i.e. 0 or 1,,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, Quantum mechanics dictates some strange things at that scale, so that bit of light could be thought of as both a particle and a wave. As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once, carrying the "shadow" of the UR with it. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011 Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. "This strips away obscurity and shows you can't have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic," he says. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction

bornagain77

steveh: you say: As they impinge on my visual system, they indeed start a series of events that result in me building up a mental picture of the distant tree. But as I understand it, the visual system is reacting to the photons – not to the tree itself. So why are the electrical and chemical signals in my visual system considered a coded representation of the tree, but the information arriving at my eye (which is also not a tree, but contains all the information my visual system needs to arrive at its concusion) not? Well, according to my views, as I have expressed them, the photons transmitting the information are of the "shadow like" category. They are a physical system which is related to the object (the tree) by specific, basic physical laws. You could argue that, in the measure that photons bevave as quantum entities, they could be considered discrete or digital. But that is not the point. The point is that they are not coded according to an arbitrary code (unless you consider the basic laws of nature a code, but it would be difficult to consider it arbitrary, except maybe for the Creator :) ). The neurological signals that transmit the information to the brain, and from the brain to consciousness, are different, at least as far as we understand (I will happily admit that our understanding of these points is rather limited. For what we know of neurological structures, a real arbitrary coding probably happens in the nervous system. And it is not based purely on basci physical laws. IOWs, the retinal the optical nerve, and the central structures in the brain do not work merely as a film, conveying analogically the form of the tree. They work more like a CCD with a complex software, transforming the visual input into some kind of digital message, elaborating it, reconstructing it, and so on. Just to be more clear: a DNA gene requires knowledge of the genetic code to be understood or used as a storing memory of a protein sequence. Any software requires basic coding rules to work. The neurological system, as far as we can understand, has ots specific codes too. None of those codes is strictly a consequence of physical laws, although all of them work through physical laws. The sequence of myoglobin could be stored by any other code based on the four nucleotides of DNA, or by any coded sequence of bits in a computer. A word processor can work in the same way if it is written for Windows or for Linux, but the code will be different. The code is arbitrary. The information remains the same. Arbitrary coding procedures are necessary both when the digital coded information is created and whne it is decoded (translated) and used. So, my point about the DNA system should be more clear now: the gene for myoglobin is written according to a specific arbitrari code, the genetic code. We have to explain in some way how that structure, storing precious information about a very efficient protein molecule, originated. And that explanation must take into account the "code awareness" of that particular information (as well as of any protein coding gene). On the other side, we have to acknowledge that the translation system is equally "aware" of the specific arbitrary genetic code, otherwise it could not work. We have to explain that too. In explaining that, we must remember that the translation system, in all its implementations that we know, consists of many very complex structure, at least: a) the ribosome system b) the tRNAs c) the 20 synthetases I am overlooking here the transcription part, and many other things. I will also leave alone a) and b), to concentrate only on c). Why? Because c) is the part that is most responsible for decoding the genetic code. It is the specific "code aware" part. And how is it "code aware"? In a very complex way. Each of the 20 synthetases is able to recognize a specific tRNA with a specific anticodon, and to "charge" it with the correct aminoacid for that anticodon. Please note that there is no biochemical connection between the anticodon in the tRNA and the aminoacid. The connection is "created" by the specific sequence and structure of the specific synthetase (a very complex protein made of hundreds of AAs). So, we can say that the 20 synthtases are very much "code aware": their same structure and function is built to "serve" the specific arbitrary genetic code. And, obviously, the information about each of the 20 synthetases is stored in the respective DNA genes, in a very "code aware" way. And obviously, for each synthetase, that information can be used only by the translation apparatus, based on the synthetases themselves. Is all that clear? gpuccio

StephenB: Hi, how are you? Thank you for the comments. And for the "ontological and epistemological chance" formulation (what a beautiful way of saying it!). As you have partially entered the game :) , as soon as you can, I would appreciate to know your take about quantum probability: ontological or epistemological? gpuccio

UB: It will be a pleasure to read your further contributions. Please, take all the time you need... gpuccio

small point: encoded information, such as we find encoded in computers, and such as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of 'conserved' quantum information:,,,

Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy - June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that "more than complete knowledge" from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, "This doesn't mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine." The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what's known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says "We're working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm

bornagain77

By the way... Steve your 70 is a great question. I think I can answer it to your satisfaction when I return -Thanks again. Upright BiPed

I also want to acknowledge the useful distinctions that GPuccio makes between digital and analog information and call attention to steve h's interesting questions about epistemology. Normally, I would get in the game, but I need a day off. Keep up the good work everyone. StephenB

Hi GP, I have just scanned your comments above, but just from that quick scan I can see that we have some deeper misuderstandings that I might have thought, but I am fairly certain that they are just that - misunderstandings. The problem is that I do not have the time at this moment to properly respond. So allow me just to say that I will return later and clarify my thoughts. All the Best. Upright BiPed

I am very impressed with the high level of this discussion. Everyone has contributed something of value. Permit me to pay a special tribute to Upright Biped for providing the substantive argumentation and to GPuccio for making the distinction between ontological and epistemological chance (though he didn't express it in those same terms). Because of the elimination process inherent in the methodology known as the "explanatory filter, many mistakenly believe that ID argues for the existence of ontological chance (chance as a causal agent or an instrumental power) when, in my judgement, it is epistemological chance (events and processes that, from our perspective, produce a range of possible outcomes, each with some probability of occurring) that is being argued for-- an empirical formulation that lends itself to statistical measurement. Indeed, it is the Darwinists and Theistic Evolutionists that assign causal power to chance, suggesting either, in the first instance, that randomness has its own creative power or, in the second, that God gave nature the power to "create itself." Chance cannot do anything because chance has no being--a formal probability is not the same thing a real force. In any case, it should be obvious that Upright Biped has given this matter a great deal of thought and there appear to be no substantive arguments against his position. That is a remarkable development and a high compliment to his preparation skills, given the fact that so many observers would love for him to be wrong. StephenB

I would like to add the following point which I think may have been implicit in GP's last comment. When I look at a distant tree, photons carry information to my eye. The photons are not the tree itself so, as I understand it, they could be considered to be a represenation of it - and they are not arbitrary and can be explained by the rules of nature. As they impinge on my visual system, they indeed start a series of events that result in me building up a mental picture of the distant tree. But as I understand it, the visual system is reacting to the photons - not to the tree itself. So why are the electrical and chemical signals in my visual system considered a coded representation of the tree, but the information arriving at my eye (which is also not a tree, but contains all the information my visual system needs to arrive at its concusion) not? steveh

UB: I am enjoying the discussion too :) About our "disagreements", I owe you some clarifications. 1) I absolutely agree with you that if we use "information" in the sense of the ultimate conscious representation, including cognition and feeling, that only happens in a conscious agent. I have clearly stated that in my answer to CR (Post 59): "Knowledge is always “created” (your word!) in the consciousness of a conscious intelligent agent. Only conscious intelligent agents can “understand”, and therefore “know”. There is no other way. The same is true for the knowledge of the biological designer: it originated in the consciousness of the biological designer." This concept is true both for the origin of information (a conscious representation of the designer) and for the final recognition of information as such (a conscious representation of the agent who recognizes design). 2) At the same time, I feel the need to define "objective information" as any arrangement in a material system that can evoke some specific cognition in a conscious observer. Here, matter is only a vehicle, but the presence of information is confirmed by the objective possibility that some conscious observer can have the specific representation as evoked by that arrangement of matter. 3) Now, in a sense, any physical system bears at least information about itself. We will ignore that, because I believe it does not count for your argument. 4) The situation is different when some material system bears information about some different, distinct material system. Here, your argument begins to be pertinent. 5) Still, I think that we must distinguish between the two different situations I have outlined in my answer to Steveh (post 58): those cases where the information can be explained by physical laws (some cases of analog information); and those cases where the information cannot be explained by physical laws, either because a designed procedure is necessary to "transfer" the specific form to another physical system (some cases of analog information, such as Mount Rushmore); or because the information in the second system is caode by some symbolic digital code (all digital information). Now, I believe that your argument is perfectly correct, but that it could be limited to this last case (digital information), while it can create difficulties in the other cases. The limitation does not create any problem for the biological discourse, because, as I have stated many times, the information in DNA is absolutely digital, coded by an abstrac logical code. 6) Finally, I would like to comment on your argument that any type of information, in the end, must be transferred in digital form to the conscious perceiver, because human senses and cognition operate (as far as we know) through neurological tools that are essentially digital (I hope I have understood well your point). That is true, but still I feel that it does not answer fully Steveh's objection, for the following reasons: a) Even if the final transfer of information to the human perceiver is always through digital tools, an objective difference remains between systems like the shadow or the tracks, and systems like a book or a DNA gene. We must acknowledge that difference, and I think that your argument has different validity in the two cases. b) Even if the final transfer of information to the human perceiver is always through digital tools, we don't really know the true nature of the final conscious representation. c) Humans could not be the only conscious perceivers. The biological designer ia certainly a cosncious perceiver and agent, and is very likely not human. We cannot generalize the way humans perceive nature (through digital neurological tools) to any kind of perceiver. d) Sicking to the concept of "objective information", we can limit our discussion to a recognizable property of the physical system. The cosncious perceiver serves, in this case, only as a tool to recognize the presence of information in the system. How the human observer recognizes that information is not pertinent at this level. So, an objective difference remains between "shadow like" systems, that are vehicles of information about the basic system only because physical laws have "transferred" an analog form to the second system (a process that does not require a designer or an act of design), and digital systems, where the information has been arbitrarily coded, and that therefore require a designer, a design procedure, and a translation procedure, if the correct information has to be transferred to a conscious observer. I hope I have expressed my thoughts clearly. I am obviously bery much interested in your comments :) gpuccio

I have to say that I am really enjoying reading the comments here. Mung and I have disagreements, and GP and I have disagreements. But these are the typical machinations of differing perspectives of related terms, not stark disagreements on observables. And that is what is at issue here: can it be demonstrated that the observations made in the argument are false, or that the conclusions do not follow from the premises? Thus far, that has not been the case. Upright BiPed

Hello steveh

How so? You stated that it’s not logically possible to transfer information without encoding it in matter; However generations of philosophers who knew nothing about photons have managed to conduct perfectly logical discussions based on the apparent fact that they could just see the information from afar

Living organisms have recorded information from their environment and exchanged symbolic representations between each other for eons on end. How does that acknowledgement impact the observations made? To argue against this observation is to say that information can exist in a material universe without a medium of matter or energy. That’s a stretch. We'd have to wonder why we always find it in a medium, wouldn't we?

Modern physicists tell us that information is carried in photons which sometimes act like particles (i.e. matter) and sometimes are more strange.

I am going to take this opportunity to explain a disambiguation. Modern physics reifies the term “information” for the express purpose that it becomes calculable to human investigators. That reification serves a human purpose, but it is an intra-disciplinary mistake to apply it beyond that purpose. To say that an oxygen atom exchanges information with a hydrogen atom to become a water molecule is to simply step in as a human observer and assert that it does. But there is a larger issue. If a water molecule “contains information” merely because it exist, then everything “contains information” and we'll need a new word to describe those things that are actually arranged to “contain information”. We will have taken a very unique material phenomenon within the cosmos (the existence of recorded information) and forced it to be ubiquitous among all matter - and in the process we will have destroyed the meaning of the word we've used to describe it. An empty page of paper will suddenly “contain information” just like one full of words – just so that its physical state becomes calculable to human beings. This is an anthropocentric reification of the word, which if mis-used, destroys the established meaning of the word (from its Greek precursors to its Latin form) and forces the need for an immediate replacement if we are to be able to distinguish an empty page of paper from a written poem. Even so, this reification of the term “information” has become established among physicists and others, and that is why the argument above adds the disambiguation of “recorded information” to specifically distinguish it from the reified “physical information” of physics. Simply put, the transfer of recorded information is a material process which is physically distinguishable from an oxygen atom binding with a hydrogen atom to form a water molecule. So when you step on the ground and leave a footprint (or cast a shadow for that matter) that footprint is nothing more than the state of the ground after being stepped on. For that state to become recorded information – for its form to become instantiated in matter which can in-form a receiver of that information – requires a mechanism capable of bringing that information into being. - - - - - - - - - - - You then make several comments about immaterial entities (ghost, souls, and Deities). I am not sure how these things, which by definition are immeasurable, impact the observations being made in this argument. - - - - - - - - - - -

As for the shadow, I agree that my vision system uses a material representation of the shadow on the rock. However you imply in point 4 that a representation always requires an arrangement of matter which is not reducible to physical law. This may be true of my visual system, but I think that the shadow is also a representation of the robber and it is entirely explained by physical law, as are the footprints.

To say that the “shadow is a representation of the robber” requires you to observe it. It also requires you to know what a robber is, it requires you to know what a shadows is, and that shadows can be cast upon the ground, and that shadows shaped like this come from bodies shaped like that> etc, etc, etc. Suddenly, to say that the “shadow is a representation of the robber” requires quite a lot, particularly an observer, because none of that it is “contained” in the shadow or the ground. The shadow on the ground is no more than the state of the ground. It only becomes a representation of something after you observe it. Upright BiPed

CR,

An arrangement of matter that evokes an effect represents knowledge of how to bring that effect about. For example, I might want to build an army of nanobots that, when injected into a patient, hunt down and kill cancer cells. However, before raw materials could be transformed into said naobots, the requisite knowledge of how to perform that transformation would need to be present. My desire or intention isn’t sufficient for this to occur. And, as a person, it’s uncontroversial that people exhibit intent. Again, this isn’t the case regarding knowledge present in the genome.

Again, the source of the information nor its intent, or lack thereof, is germane to the observations of the transfer. If your point is that the information in the genome exists without intent, that fact in and of itself would still not be germane to the observations of the transfer. If this is indeed the point you are wishing to make, then perhaps the only question would be how you determined that from the evidence. As for myself, I am familiar with the proposition that there is such a thing as a “will to survive” in living things. It is called by various names but is substantially the same phenomena and is generally taken for granted as an emergent property of living things. Since this “will to survive” is only demonstrated within massive biological organization (i.e. living things), it is reasonable to believe that such organization is at least one of the requirements for it to manifest itself. If you've located the ultimate source of that organization and measured it by some means and found it to be without "intention", I would sure like to see your data. If not, then I am not certain what impact your point has on the observations made here.

Again, by knowledge, I’m referring to information which when embedded in a storage medium tends to cause itself to remain there. And, I’m referring to Karl Popper’s definition that knowledge exists independent of anyone’s belief. So, it’s unclear why intent must be present to “cause” an particular transformation of matter.

I've looked over my argument and I don't see the word “intent” anywhere in it. Perhaps you can point out where I have addressed “intent” either arguing for or against it in any way. If I was able to state my case coherently without the need to address it, and indeed didn't address it, then I am not sure why you are asking me to address it now. I am also interested to know what this has to do with showing the observations regarding the transfer of recorded information (TRI) are false or that the logic is invalid.

For example, if you asked for the knowledge of how to build a car but received the knowledge of how to build a truck instead, the knowledge you possess still builds a truck regardless of what you believe it does. Nor does following the instructions result in a car merely because that’s what you intended.

You need to demonstrate that the “intent” of information, or lack thereof, must be measured and/or accounted for in order to observe the material transfer of that information, otherwise I refer you to my previous answer. And since the remainder of your post simply repeats this line of thinking, I will leave it here until you demonstrate the above. While you are working on that, may I suggest that you try to approach the argument on its own terms? For instance, the word “knowledge” is not mentioned anywhere in the argument. There is a reason for that. It is not germane to the observation of the material transfer. You seem to want to conflate the transfer of information with transfer of knowledge. If we were to witness the transfer of information from a book to a child, then perhaps you could argue that we had observed the transfer of knowledge, although I would still argue that all we had witness was the transfer of information, and that knowledge was a separate cognitive phenomenon. In any case, what if we used the transfer of information in a fabric loom in order to control the patterns of thread woven into fabric. Would you then pick up the cloth and say “this is knowledge”? It seems like a rather loose term. Like I said, perhaps you should attack the argument on its own terms, or demonstrate that other issues must be included in order to observe TRI. Upright BiPed

timothya: You are right that the concept of randomness is often misunderstood (on both sides). From an ID point of view, I would distinguish the following meanings: 1) Material phenomena can usually be explained by physical laws. In that sense, we assume that they are completely determined, either we can describe the causal chain in detail, or not. In the second case, we can often get some useful description of the system just the same, by some appropriate probabilistic model. We call such a system a "random system", but the events are determined just the same, and they are only described by a random model. Obviosuly, the knowledge we get through a random model is not so specific as a deterministic knowledge, but is is often very useful just the same. 2) In human design, something different can be observed. A conscious intelligent agent, starting form subjective representations that include cognition and intent, embeds some specific form and function into a physical system. That is what is called "design". 3) Now, the problem arises: what is the origin of that specific form? Does the process violate strict determinism? These are not simple problems. I will try to give some simple answer from my point of view. 4) I would say that the main origin of the specific form embedded in the physycal system is the conscious representation of the designer. In that sense, the final form in some way "expresses" the cognition and intent of the designer's representations. 5) What about determinism? That depends on one's world view. A materialist reductionist will probably say that all conscious representations of the agent are generated by physical laws, and are therefore determined. I reject that view. But the subject is obviously vast. In all cases, the designer, at some point, interacts with physical laws (probably without violating them) through some interface (in humans, the mind-body interface). In the end, new original physical events are created that determine the physical modifications in the final object. 6) What about random systems? The important concept, often outlined by Abel, is that the physical sytem which "receives" the conscious representation must in some way be "neutral": IOWs, it must be physically possible for the system to reach, given the correct inputs, any possible configuration in some configuration space. That allows the designer to fix the specific configuration that conveys the meaning and function. 7) The problem is: in a complex system, where many independent variables determine the output, there are many different possible outputs, and the behaviour of the system can best be described as a random model. Random variation in the genome is one such system. 8) That random variation is invoked by neodarwinism as the engine of change that generates biological information. Obviously, with the "help" of deterministic natural selection. 9) ID is deeply interested in verifying if the random behaviour of random variation in a biological system has really the potentialities to explain what it is supposed to explain, even considering the role of NS. For us in ID, the answer is a very strong and detailed "no". 10) The best alternative explanation is that the biological variation that generates the complex and useful information we observe in living beings is designed and implemented by some conscious intelligent agent. gpuccio

gpuccio, you state:

Random effects are completely deterministic (except maybe in quantum mechanics).

Leaving aside the talking about the ultimate source of randomness which is inherent in space-time events, it is interesting to point out what the ultimate source for randomness is in quantum mechanic events: In the following video, at the 37:00 minute mark, Anton Zeilinger, a leading researcher in quantum teleportation with many breakthroughs under his belt, humorously reflects on just how deeply determinism has been undermined by quantum mechanics by saying such a deep lack of determinism may provide some of us a loop hole when they meet God on judgment day.

Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw

Personally, I feel that such a deep undermining of determinism by quantum mechanics, far from providing a 'loop hole' on judgement day, actually restores free will to its rightful place in the grand scheme of things, thus making God's final judgments on men's souls all the more fully binding since man truly is a 'free moral agent' just as Theism has always maintained. And to solidify this theistic claim for how reality is constructed, the following study came along a few months after I had seen Dr. Zeilinger's video:

Can quantum theory be improved? - July 23, 2012 Excerpt: Being correct 50% of the time when calling heads or tails on a coin toss won’t impress anyone. So when quantum theory predicts that an entangled particle will reach one of two detectors with just a 50% probability, many physicists have naturally sought better predictions. The predictive power of quantum theory is, in this case, equal to a random guess. Building on nearly a century of investigative work on this topic, a team of physicists has recently performed an experiment whose results show that, despite its imperfections, quantum theory still seems to be the optimal way to predict measurement outcomes.,,, However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (i.e. *conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice, i.e. free will, assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,, ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html

So just as I had suspected after watching Dr. Zeilinger's video, it is found that a required assumption of 'free will' in quantum mechanics is what necessarily drives the random (non-deterministic) aspect of quantum mechanics. Moreover it was shown in the paper that one cannot ever improve the predictive power of quantum mechanics by ever removing free will as a starting assumption in Quantum Mechanics! of note: *The act of 'observation' in quantum mechanics is equivalent to measuring,, as well, it is important to note that, despite the intrinsic randomness that the 'free will assumption' places on quantum mechanics, Quantum mechanics, as a scientific theory, is found to exceed General Relativity in 'predictive power':

Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm i.e. "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries' http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/

Somewhat related note:

LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex­plain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamental­ly spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf

verse and music:

"See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess... I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice,and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days." --Deuteronomy 30:15-16, 19-20 Steven Curtis Chapman - God is God (Original Version) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz94NQ5HRyk

bornagain77

BA: always good to meet the old friends! :) gpuccio

Gpuccio: Your point is pretty much what I have being trying to say. But for some reason the term "determined" appears to be interpreted differently by people on this site. I am not sure, but it seems that "determined" is required to mean "determined by an intelligent entity". timothya

gpuccio, good to see you post again! bornagain77

timothya: Random effects are completely deterministic (except maybe in quantum mechanics). It's their description that is statistical. We are not able to describe some systems in deterministic detail, because we lack the necessary data, and so we use statistical mathemathical objects that describe with some approximation and uncertainty their behaviour. But there is no doubt that the tossing of a coin is deterministic, and that the result is predetermined. We just cannot compute it correctly. gpuccio

critical rationalist: Briefly: I am not sure I understand what you mean: Biological adaptations represent transformations of matter that occur when the requisite knowledge is present. Furthermore, knowledge is independent of anyone’s belief. Nor do all conjectures occur in response to a particular problem. Well, if the requisite knowledge is present, I would call that "implementation", and not "adaptation". If you write a code to implement an algorithm that you know, is that an "adaptation"? Please, clarify what you mean. I cannot “plan” an army of nanobots that kill cancer cells merely because I intend to do so. The transformations of matter that result in nanobots that actually kill cancer cells only occur when the requisite knowledge is present. The origin of that knowledge is the origin of the system of nanobots. I certainly agree with that. To clarify, I’m not asking where the knowledge now in the genome was previously located in some other form, but how the knowledge to adapt matter into biological features was it created. Knowledge is always "created" (your word!) in the consciousness of a conscious intelligent agent. Only conscious intelligent agents can "understand", and therefore "know". There is no other way. The same is true for the knowledge of the biological designer: it originated in the consciousness of the biological designer. The knowledge of how to build a microprocessor cannot be encoded into 8bit ASCII form before that knowledge has been created. Nor can encoding occur merely because I intend it to occur. The encoding process is a transformation of matter that occurs when the requisite knowledge is present. Correct. And the requisite knowledge requires a conscious intelligent agent (the designer). It’s uncontroversial that people exhibit intent. As such, it’s uncontroversial that intent plays a role in the explanation of how the list is ordered. However, this isn’t the case regarding adaptations in the biosphere. Why? How was the knowledge created in those "adaptations"? As such, my knowledge of how to open coconuts is merely a useful rule of thumb, which is limited in reach. For example, in the absence of an explanation, I might collect coconuts picked from other trees, carry them to this same tree, climb it, then drop them on the rocks to open them. Your example is not clear. What do you mean by "rule of thumb"? Your "rule of thumb", although simpler, requires all that is required form what you call "explanatory knowledge": a conscious agent with an intent (opening the nut" and an understanding of the meaning of facts (the coconut opens when it falls on the rock), and the ability to extablish cognitive connections betqeen facts, such as a cuase and effect relationship. It is cognitive knowledge at all effects, although it does not imply a wider understanding of physics. It originates in a conscious mind. Darwinism substitutes the role of consciousness with an artificail and ineffectice non conscious mechanism (natural selection) which can in no way explain what it should explain, least of all the coding and decoding of complex symbolic information in living systems, and the origic of that information. But, anyway, natural selection is a deterministic effect in some particular system, and not certainly a "rule of thumb". gpuccio

Steveh (#35): I believe you are raising an interesting point with your shadow and tracks argument, a point that needs to be addressed. Well, let's say that we are discussing objective information, that is information that is embedded in a material system, and can be "read" and understood by some conscious agent. Let's say that a material object or system B has objective informatio about a distinct material object or system A if sone conscious agent can get useful representations of A through B. In that sense, certainly your shadows or tracks bear information about some distinct physical system. It is also true that, in your examples, the connection between A and B can perfectly be explained by basci physical laws: both the shadow and the track can be explained that way, and require no additional procedure. So, I would say you are right. But we must notice that both the shadow and the track have a common property: they are some form of analog information. IOWs, the shadow (B) takes some form, because of the working of light, that corresponds to the form of A. Now, not all analog information can be explained by mere physical laws. Mount Rushmore, for example, bears analog information that cannot be explained by physical laws, and requires a specific design procedure. But there are certainly many examples of analog information that can be explained by mere physical laws. But what about digital information? In digital information, no physical law can explain the correspondence between the digital arrangement in B and the form in A. A definite procedure is required to embed the information in B (coding), and another definite procedure is required to get the useful information about A from B (decoding). The information about A is embedded in B through an abstract code, a numerical or logical entity. Why am I discussing digital information here? It's very simple. 1) First of all, I believe that UB's argument applies to digital information, and not necessarily to analog information. 2) The information we are debating here, the information in DNA protein genes, is certainly digital. So, UB's argument is completely valid, provided that we do this useful restriciton to digital information. The information in a protein coding gene is digital. It is encoded through a specific logical base three redundant code, usually called the genetic code. It requires a specific procedure to be translated, that is the traslation procedure. We have no detailed and convincing understanding of the procedure by which it was encoded in the beginning. Moreover, as I have tried to emphasize, the symbolic code, the genetic code, has been embedded both in the storing material (DNA genes) and in the translation apparatus (the 20 synthetases, and other components). Both the stored gene and the translating proteins are "code dependent". In two completely different ways. And the code they depend on is the same. So, UB's argument is perfectly to the point: the information in DNA is digital and symbolic. It requires a procedure to be translated. It is in no way explained by any physical law, and is essentially in no way different from the information we manipulate in our own digital machines. gpuccio

Mung posted this:

Regardless of the outcome. Que Sera, Sera

Before the coin is tossed, the outcome is not determined - it might be a head or a tail, with one-half probability either way. After the coin is tossed, the outcome is determined. It is either a head or a tail, there is no doubt about the result. It is determined. Something happens between the before and the after. What was it? Oh, right, the randomising event of tossing the coin. If you don't like the term "determined" to describe what happens when you toss a coin, then use another word. How about "specified". I'm not greatly fussed. timothya

CR "To clarify, I’m not asking where the knowledge now in the genome was previously located in some other form, but how the knowledge to adapt matter into biological features was created" John Ch1:1 In the beginning was the Word (information, knowledge), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Seems quite clear to me really. PeterJ

CR: Pardon, but we routinely observe programmers and engineers in action, so to compare what left signs that are sufficiently similar to point to the same pattern of cause, is reasonable. (Or, are you implicitly assuming that there was and could be no possible designer at the point of origin of life. That is a strong claim that would need to be warranted. Absent a designer being impossible, it is far more reasonable to infer on sign to known cause, than to infer to something that we have every reason to believe is not a credible case on the gamut of the observable cosmos: blind chance and equally blind mechanical necessity.) KF kairosfocus

Nope, it is as vague as it needs to be given the fact that no one knows how to program an organism.

I’m not following you.

By intention, no doubt.

Are you suggesting there can be no explanation for how the knowledge to build biological adaptations, as found in the genome, was created?

Why the jump to an absolute extreme? Just because we don't know how to program an organism now does not even inply we will never know. Joe

cr @23:

All logically conceivable transformations of matter can be classified in the following three ways: transformations that are prohibited by the laws of physics, spontaneous transformations (such as the formation of stars) or transformations which are possible when the requisite knowledge of how to perform them are present.

How can something be physically possible yet logically impossible?

Mung

timothya:

After the test the outcome is “determined”...

Regardless of the outcome. Que Sera, Sera

The specific outcome “is determined by” the randomising process...

You should be laughed off this site. No one here at UD has any reason to take anything you say seriously. Mung

CR: What explanation does ID present as to how this knowledge, found in the genome, was created? Joe: Programmed by the designer(s). CR: ...It’s unclear how your answer and different that saying, “A magician did it”? In other words, you still haven’t explained how the knowledge found in the genome was created. Joe: Nope, it is as vague as it needs to be given the fact that no one knows how to program an organism. I'm not following you. Are you suggesting there can be no explanation for how the knowledge to build biological adaptations, as found in the genome, was created? Joe: And no one can explain how the laws that govern this universe were created. So Steve Hawking sez “They just are (the way they are)” Again, this is unnecessarily vague. We have yet to explain, cannot currently explain in practice or cannot explain in principle? critical rationalist

gpuccio: Well, the problem is exactly that: how can an “adaptation”, without any intent, generate a system like the one we consider here (information in the DNA gene and its translation by the translation apparatus, both of them linked, in different ways, to a symbolic genetic code)? There is no way to explain that, except by wishful thinking and myth. Please see my comment above. Biological adaptations represent transformations of matter that occur when the requisite knowledge is present. Furthermore, knowledge is independent of anyone's belief. Nor do all conjectures occur in response to a particular problem. Do you have any detailed criticism of the above? Gpuccio: IOWs, a complex plan, including knowledge and intent, was implemented. I cannot "plan" an army of nanobots that kill cancer cells merely because I intend to do so. The transformations of matter that result in nanobots that actually kill cancer cells only occur when the requisite knowledge is present. The origin of that knowledge is the origin of the system of nanobots. To clarify, I'm not asking where the knowledge now in the genome was previously located in some other form, but how the knowledge to adapt matter into biological features was it created. The knowledge of how to build a microprocessor cannot be encoded into 8bit ASCII form before that knowledge has been created. Nor can encoding occur merely because I intend it to occur. The encoding process is a transformation of matter that occurs when the requisite knowledge is present. critical rationalist

It is simple: in tossing a coin, the future outcome is still "undetermined" (could be head, could be tail). After the test the outcome is "determined" (either head or tail happened). The specific outcome "is determined by" the randomising process of tossing the coin. Got it? By the way, I think you are overloading the word "determined". timothya

timothya:

In this case, “random mutation” means a mutation determined by chance (which is covered by the first definition). What’s your problem with that?

Maus != Mung "Determined by Chance" is any Oxymoron. That's my problem with that. Why you would believe that something could be determined by a non-deterministic process escapes me. Care to explain? You're in over your head. Stop. Pause. Take a breath. Think. Reflect. Ask. If it's arbitrary, can it be deterministic? Mung

steveh:

Loads of information, none designed, none intended, all material, all subject to the laws of physics and certainly not arbitrary.

That's a lot of "not so" packed into a single sentence. How much of it can you actually support? You assert that there is "loads of information." Yet you also assert: 1. No information is intended. 2. All information is material. 3. All information is subject to the laws of physics. 4. No information is arbitrary. You have given no reason to believe you. Mung

Maus: In this case, "random mutation" means a mutation determined by chance (which is covered by the first definition). What's your problem with that? timothya

It never ceases to amaze me the positions our opponents are willing to assume to "win" an argument against us. Mung

OK, never-mind. Who needs science and evidence when one can baldly declare evolutioncandoit? Earth to Al- "That which can asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens Joe

timothya,

The only arbitrary component arises when random mutations result in a different replicant, or mis-transciption results in a different protein output.

What is "arbitrary" about a random mutation? Surely you do not mean to argue that a random mutation is based on or subject to individual judgment or preference. Surely you do not mean to argue that a random mutation is established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute. Surely you do not mean to argue that a random mutation is not limited by law. I assume you're left with: 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle. So now you want to argue that random mutations are determined? And this is your argument against the meaning of arbitrary? lol. Mung

timothya @2:

Presumably not 3 or 4.

Why presume? 3 and 4 seem to me to be exactly what Upright BiPed has in mind. Why do you think otherwise?

The only arbitrary component arises when random mutations result in a different replicant, or mis-transciption results in a different protein output.

Oh. So you are familiar with the meaning of arbitrary, when you want to use the term. Mung

timothya:

I must be a bit dim.

Not necessarily. Typically the "critics" are hardly dim. You should see the arguments that they can construct! Maybe obtuse.

DNA: 1. replicates itself more or less faithfully, except when it mutates at random

DNA does not replicate itself. I won't debate someone who either doesn't know the facts or willingly ignores them.

DNA: 2. transcribes protein sequences via RNAs more or less faithfully based on its specific nucelotide sequence

DNA doesn't transcribe protein sequences. Sheesh.

The information held in the original DNA sequence is preserved through both processes (though it may be modified in both by either base substitution or mis-transcription, which are both observed).

There's information in the DNA sequence? Do tell.

Mung

Programmed by the designer(s).

This is unnecessarily vague.

Nope, it is as vague as it needs to be given the fact that no one knows how to program an organism.

In other words, you still haven’t explained how the knowledge found in the genome was created.

And no one can explain how the laws that govern this universe were created. So Steve Hawking sez "They just are (the way they are)" Joe

Also, your #2 seems to be devoid of any relevant observations.

How so? You stated that it's not logically possible to transfer information without encoding it in matter; However generations of philosophers who knew nothing about photons have managed to conduct perfectly logical discussions based on the apparant fact that they could just see the information from afar. Some of them may have suspected some additional matter was involved, but I doubt anyone ever lost an argument for not doing so. Modern physicists tell us that information is carried in photons which sometimes act like particles (i.e matter) and sometimes are more strange. Also people here occasionally argue about Out of Body experiences. Apparently some immaterial soul/spirit/whatever floats out of the body of a technically dead person lying on an operating table, has a leasurely look around the operating theater, notices some object that the dead body below them has no way of seeing and brings knowledge of it back to the body using no apparent physical means. Nobody here tells them that have made a basic logical error, although the materialists amongst us will assume that they dreamt it all up. And a God who doesn't seem to be physically here with us, is often stated to have full knowledge about every thing about us and our surroundings. Is he reliant on photons travelling at the speed of light reaching him in heaven? It strikes me as a materialist as all being a bit silly, but again I don't think it's necessarily logically impossible. As I said, I think you've gone wrong aleady on point 2. You state on each subsequent argument that its truth depends of that of all that came before it. As for the shadow, I agree that my vision system uses a material representation of the shadow on the rock. However you imply in point 4 that a representation always requires an arrangement of matter which is not reducible to physical law. This may be true of my visual system, but I think that the shadow is also a representation of the robber and it is entirely explained by physical law, as are the footprints. That your visual system involves a arguably arbitrary component to see the footprint, does not require that the arrangement of matter in the footprint conveying information about the robber was not reducible to physical law as well. You didn't actually use the word "always" but I think it pretty much implied - otherwise you should have said "which is not (always) reducible to physical law". steveh

UB: I understand your comment. My point is that the transfer of recorded information can occur when the protocol is present (within a system) as outlined above. 1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc). An arrangement of matter that evokes an effect represents knowledge of how to bring that effect about. For example, I might want to build an army of nanobots that, when injected into a patient, hunt down and kill cancer cells. However, before raw materials could be transformed into said naobots, the requisite knowledge of how to perform that transformation would need to be present. My desire or intention isn't sufficient for this to occur. And, as a person, it's uncontroversial that people exhibit intent. Again, this isn't the case regarding knowledge present in the genome. UB: The argument above is that if the required protocol is instantiated in the system, then the information can be translated from its transcribed state into a functional effect. Again, by knowledge, I’m referring to information which when embedded in a storage medium tends to cause itself to remain there. And, I'm referring to Karl Popper’s definition that knowledge exists independent of anyone’s belief. So, it's unclear why intent must be present to "cause" an particular transformation of matter. For example, if you asked for the knowledge of how to build a car but received the knowledge of how to build a truck instead, the knowledge you possess still builds a truck regardless of what you believe it does. Nor does following the instructions result in a car merely because that's what you intended. CR: Furthermore, this knowledge is explanatory in nature, rather than merely being a useful rule of thumb. UB: I am uncertain of how this impacts the argument. Not all conjectures are intentional. For example, imagine I've been shipwrecked on a deserted island and I have partial amnesia due to the wreck. I remember that coconuts are edible so climb a tree to pick them. While attempting to pick a coconut, one falls, lands of a rock and splits open. Note that I did not intend for the coconut to fall, let alone plan for it to fall because I guessed coconuts that fall on rocks might crack open. The coconut falling was random in respect to the problem I hadn't yet even tried to solve. Furthermore, due to my amnesia, I've hypothetically forgotten what I know about physics, including mass, inertia, etc. Specifically, I lack an explanation as to why the coconut landing on the rock causes it to open. As such, my knowledge of how to open coconuts is merely a useful rule of thumb, which is limited in reach. For example, in the absence of an explanation, I might collect coconuts picked from other trees, carry them to this same tree, climb it, then drop them on the rocks to open them. However, explanatory knowledge has significant reach. Specifically, if my explanatory knowledge of physics, including inertia, mass, etc. returned, I could use that explanation to strike coconut with any similar sized rock, rather than vice versa. Furthermore, I could exchange the rock with another object with significant mass, such as an anchor and open objects other than coconuts, such as shells, use this knowledge to protect myself from attacking wildlife, etc. So, explanatory knowledge comes from intentional conjectures made by people and have significant reach. Non-explanatory knowledge (useful rules of thumb) represent unintentional conjectures and have limited reach. Knowledge can be created without intent in the form of useful rules of thumb. The knowledge of how to build biological adaptations isn't explanatory in nature but a useful rule of thumb. critical rationalist

CR @35: It is unclear whether you have a sincere question or are simply playing hyperskeptical semantic games due to a philosophical commitment. In order to identify which is the case and allow us to move forward with the discussion, please answer the following question: How was the knowledge in a detailed computer program or database created? Eric Anderson

Through an interesting turn of events, I was given the opportunity to have an audience with a physicist that many would consider an authority on these specific topics. I can say this with some confidence because his peers have already honored him as such more than once. There is no need in asking for his name because (#1) I do not have his permission to give it and (#2) I wouldn’t anyway. This man is an ardent materialist who was kind enough to review the larger argument I am making here and give me his response to it. I have no intentions of dragging him out to be slaughtered by the ideologues whom have already shown what they will do to anyone who would stain themselves by agreeing with an ID proponent. It’s not going to happen. The reason I bring this up is because I do intend on sharing the first line of his response. However, I would like to take the opportunity to draw a specific contrast. This particular physicist is not the only one which I have encountered with my argument. There have been four or five others. Recently, I spent a little over two months on The Skeptical Zone arguing my case. In the gallery there was a retired physicist. This was my first encounter with this person. In his response to my argument, this physicist prepared himself to brow beat me at every turn. He did little else, which was a disappointment to me because as a non-specialist, I could have used the opportunity to hone my argument if only he was motivated by empiricism instead of ideology. Alas, that was not to be. What I really have taken from this is the UNBELIEVABLE DIFFERENCE that exists in speaking to someone who is actually motivated by evidence. In my exchanges with the physicist mentioned above, I never once had to re-explain (for instance) what “arbitrary “ meant, or any of the other linguistic gymnastic that are required (in fact absolutely necessary) when dealing with the ideologues that troll the Internet. Here is just a tip of the contrast. Below is Mr Elzning’s foray into core of the argument above and some of his last comments made (and trust me, I am being kind by only copying these):

What “representations and protocols” do atoms follow when they condense into stars? What “representations and protocols” do stars follow in building up heavier elements from hydrogen and helium? What “representations and protocols” do stars follow when they the go supernova and throw those new elements out onto space and generate additional heavier elements in the shock waves of the explosion? It’s probably useless to try to make any sense of UB’s word salads – and I am not going to waste time on it … Every important scientific concept in every field of science is mangled beyond recognition in order to “reason” against science When I read that, I see someone who has never had a course in physics or chemistry, let alone biology. He seems to be trying to invent a new vocabulary which, as near as I can tell, is constructed to let in the conclusion of “intelligent design.” The uses of words like “evoke” and “instantiate,” and then suddenly slipping in the word “protocol” are all anthropomorphic characterizations that clearly presume what is eventually going to be concluded

And in contrast, here is the first line in the response from a physicist motivated by evidence, without the emotional requirement to belittle and berate any perceived lesser person who holds a different opinion:

I agree with everything you say, although I often use different terms. I try to stick with the vocabulary of physics as much as possible. This is just one example of the arbitrariness …

Anyone who has ever read David Berlinski’s book “The Devils Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretentions” will recall the preface of that book where David talks about a public feeling oppressed by an ideology which has co-opted the institutions of science as their means. It is not in my particular nature to feel oppressed by a bully ass, but we see it on display all the same. Upright BiPed

Joe: Programmed by the designer(s). This is unnecessarily vague. For example, before a magic trick can be performed, the explanation of how to perform that trick must be known to the magician who invented it (and passed down to subsequent magicians who perform it). The origin of that knowledge is the origin of the magic trick. In the absence of said knowledge, it would not be a magic trick but actually magic, as the knowledge of how to bring about the desired outcome would have been spontaneously generated. So, It's unclear how your answer and different that saying, "A magician did it"? In other words, you still haven't explained how the knowledge found in the genome was created. critical rationalist

critical rationalist: It’s uncontroversial that people exhibit intent. As such, it’s uncontroversial that intent plays a role in the explanation of how the list is ordered. However, this isn’t the case regarding adaptations in the biosphere. Well, the problem is exactly that: how can an "adaptation", without any intent, generate a system like the one we consider here (information in the DNA gene and its translation by the translation apparatus, both of them linked, in different ways, to a symbolic genetic code)? There is no way to explain that, except by wishful thinking and myth. What explanation does ID present as to how this knowledge, found in the genome, was created? A very simple explanation. One or more conscious agent planned the system. The symbolic code was chosen arbitrarily, although according to some logical requisites. Then necessary information about required proteins was generated and stored in protein genes, and the transaltion apparatus, including the 20 synthetase proteins, were included in the system. IOWs, a complex plan, including knowledge and intent, was implemented. Please, consider that the fundamental system that manages protein information, stores it in DNA, transcribes it in mRNA, and translates it into proteins by the 20 Synthetases, the tRNAs and the rybosomes, is universal in life. We have no evidence of any kind that life can exist without that. gpuccio

Hello Larry, Biologists routinely view the information within the genome as only analogous to other forms of information. I have heard it said many times, "when we say 'information' we know what we mean". On the contrary, it can be shown that genetic information follows the same material realities as any other form of information. It requires: "two physical objects (the representation and protocol) [as described above] along with the required preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation, and the production of unambiguous function from that arbitrary component". How these demonstrated realities impact someone’s view depends, of course, on what they started with. Upright BiPed

LarTanner, as to your question about how does Shannon information characterize mathematically to all of this, this short video, from a guy who works in the communication industry, Perry Marshall, where he talks about on 'shannon channel capacity' (i.e. mathematical theory of communication) and about how Hubert Yockey related DNA and proteins to all this may be of interest to you:

Shannon Information - Channel Capacity - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/ “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible” Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life

bornagain77

Thank you GP! I am so happy to see you posting again. Thank you as well to Eric, KF, Joe, BA, and Sal. I’m very grateful for your input. Upright BiPed

Hello CR,

All logically conceivable transformations of matter can be classified in the following three ways: transformations that are prohibited by the laws of physics, spontaneous transformations (such as the formation of stars) or transformations which are possible when the requisite knowledge of how to perform them are present.

I understand your comment. My point is that the transfer of recorded information can occur when the protocol is present (within a system) as outlined above.

Biological adaptations are transformations of matter of the latter category. Specifically, they occur when the requisite knowledge of how to perform them are present in an organism’s genome.

The source of the information does not change the necessary conditions with regard to the observations. The argument above is that if the required protocol is instantiated in the system, then the information can be translated from its transcribed state into a functional effect.

We can contrast this with, say, automobiles which, unlike biological organisms, do not contain the knowledge to build themselves. Placing a small chunk of metal and rubber in oil does not result in an automobile building itself. Rather, the knowledge of how to build automobiles exists in us and our books (or other storage media). Furthermore, this knowledge is explanatory in nature, rather than merely being a useful rule of thumb.

I am uncertain of how this impacts the argument.

What do I mean by “knowledge”? I’m referring to information which when embedded in a storage medium tends to remain there and is consistent with Karl Popper’s definition that knowledge is independent of anyone’s belief. While they serve many other purposes as well, both brains and DNA act as storage mediums

I am willing to agree to a certain extent, but again, I do not see a relation to the argument above.

What’s unclear is what you mean by arbitrary or it’s relevance. For example, as a software developer, one of the questions I often ask clients is how they want to display data in a list…

I believe your perspective is made clear here. You are talking about making arbitrary choices with regard to a program you write on top of a symbol system. I am talking about the symbol system itself. The fact that the letter “A” can be represented by “1000001” is arbitrary – not inexorable law. Upright BiPed

LarTanner, DNA is only PART of the communication system. Joe

What explanation does ID present as to how this knowledge, found in the genome, was created?

Programmed by the designer(s). How is the knowledge, found in computers, created? By the computer programmers. Joe

What explanation does ID present as to how this knowledge, found in the genome, was created? critical rationalist

Interesting. DNA in this account is a communication system such as Claude Shannon described in 1948/9, and so it therefore should be able to be characterized mathematically. Surely, characterizations along these lines have been done? As a literature guy, I'm not familiar with professional work in either genetics or math (excepting online/blog pieces that I forget quickly). If such studies have been done, what's the "new thing" we're talking about here and now? I think I'm missing the point. Or is it controversial that DNA acts like a communication system? LarTanner

BTW: the shannon entropy of DNA conventionally is calculated from the general case, not the specific case you cite.

Correction, even this is a generous assumption because it presumes: 1. DNA will exist in the first place 2. DNA will polymerize 3. DNA will be readable and thus likely homochiral 4. There are reading mechanisms that can read a DNA polymer So the actual configurational entropy is far higher than the shannon entropy we usually use to estimate the information content in DNA. Upright's post is spot on. scordova

Without further ado, here is UB’s argument: 1. .....

Perhaps a more succinct way of saying it.

Physical objects which represent information by definition must be physically improbable

Improbable, means from generalized boundary conditions, not specialized boundary conditions like DNA in living organisms.

Timothya: 1. replicates itself more or less faithfully, except when it mutates at random

That is a specialized boundary condition that doesn't take into account the possibility of the living organism existing in the first place that can make DNA. This is conflating general probability with conditional probability. If you compute the probability of polymerized homochiral DNA emerging from a chemical soup, you get a different answer than the probabilities you calculate after a cell is already living and replicating. BTW: the shannon entropy of DNA conventionally is calculated from the general case, not the specific case you cite. The way you calculate the shannon entropy would yield 0 bits per base pair, wherease the mainstream way would calculate 2 bits per base pair. Upright Biped is consistent with the mainstream notions of probability here. scordova

All logically conceivable transformations of matter can be classified in the following three ways: transformations that are prohibited by the laws of physics, spontaneous transformations (such as the formation of stars) or transformations which are possible when the requisite knowledge of how to perform them are present. Biological adaptations are transformations of matter of the latter category. Specifically, they occur when the requisite knowledge of how to perform them are present in an organism's genome. We can contrast this with, say, automobiles which, unlike biological organisms, do not contain the knowledge to build themselves. Placing a small chunk of metal and rubber in oil does not result in an automobile building itself. Rather, the knowledge of how to build automobiles exists in us and our books (or other storage media). Furthermore, this knowledge is explanatory in nature, rather than merely being a useful rule of thumb. What do I mean by "knowledge"? I'm referring to information which when embedded in a storage medium tends to remain there and is consistent with Karl Popper's definition that knowledge is independent of anyone's belief. While they serve many other purposes as well, both brains and DNA act as storage mediums. What's unclear is what you mean by arbitrary or it's relevance. For example, as a software developer, one of the questions I often ask clients is how they want to display data in a list. Item's can be sorted by one or more specific properties of the data itself, or placed in an arbitrary order. However, since the term "arbitrary" can have different meanings, I often use a hypothetical list of colors to clarify the term. On one hand, colors can sorted alphabetically, by wavelength or even the number of characters. On the other hand, they can also be displayed by one's preference, starting with their favorite color and ending with their least favorite color. The latter represents an arbitrary order. However, once a user arbitrarily orders colors in a list and quits the application, they do not reappear in the order of the users preference on next launch merely because they prefer it. Behind the scenes, I add an additional property (usually an integer or flowing point number) as an index, indicating where the user placed that color in the list. Then, rather than sorting by the colors wavelength or name, I sort by that index property. In other words, the knowledge of the user's preference is embedded in some sort of storage medium and recalled at runtime. In the absence of this knowledge, the list does not reflect the user's preference. It's uncontroversial that people exhibit intent. As such, it's uncontroversial that intent plays a role in the explanation of how the list is ordered. However, this isn't the case regarding adaptations in the biosphere. critical rationalist

kf:

But then, if you are committed to design not being seen in something like the cell, you will always be able to make up clever sounding objections.

Not clever sounding objections. Rather, strange, convoluted, incoherent objections. Eric Anderson

Great job Barry and especially Upright Biped. Now we have the septic zonites sounding off with nonsense, special pleading and equivocation- one example:

The codon-amino acid linkage may well be substitutable

That's the special pleading- and now for the equivocation:

– but this is precisely why it can evolve into a ‘code’ from a simple polyX-synthetic ribozyme.

1- Your position can't even get a simple ribozyme 2- ID is OK with the system evolving by design Joe

corrected link:

Origin Of Life - No Realistic Explanations - Charles Thaxton PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5222490/

bornagain77

F/N 2: A cybernetic, control system also clearly embeds communication and signalling protocols in a loop or in a straight feed-forward system. Where such includes a digital signal, that implies a definite comms network. Cf here protein manufacture by translation, transfer, setting up a control tape, successive coded chaining of AA's, and sending to chaperones for folding, or running through the Golgi "post office" -- with address headers of all things, much like HTTP and packet switching. kairosfocus

F/N: Arbitrary is indeed a common usage in technical fields. In communications, the discussion is about a conventional assignment, or a protocol that is explicit or implied by structures, as opposed to direct physical causal connexion that is not dependent on a purposeful arrangement. It may help to look at a basic model of a telecomms system: || TRANSMITTER || --> Channel --> || Receiver || Where TX: source --> Encoder and or modulator --> transmission unit --> And Rx: --> reception unit --> demod and decoder --> Sink The modulation scheme and the coding scheme are dependent on conventions that are expressed in purposeful system structures, such as amplitude modulation and amplitude-shift keying as a fairly simple case. Simplest way to do AM is to modify the amplitude of an oscillator based on an analogue [or step-wide] input signal, which physically instantiates the mathematical operation of multiplying the signals, and gives rise to a carrier with side-bands. This can be boosted in an amplifier and transmitted via an antenna or a cable. The antenna in effect couples electrons running up and down a metal conductor to a surrounding oscillating electro-magnetic field. This propagates away, with various interesting possibilities studied under the head: propagation. At a receiver, a tuned circuit set to the carrier frequency and coupled to an antenna can oscillate in sympathy with the vibrating field that has propagated. This can then be boosted and half-wave rectified with some low pass filtering, to yield the base-band signal. You don't even need an amplifier if the signal is strong enough, that is how a crystal receiver works. Thanks to semiconductors due to oxidation etc, a fence wire could sometimes serve as such. Now, at first, I thought UB missed the side of waves carrying signals, where say an E-M wave is not exactly material, but then when I thought about the comms system, it was clear that he is right, there has to be some embodiment of the scheme in a material entity for it to have effect. I think it would be helpful for us to take a look here on in my always linked notes, to help clarify this area, up to a basic intro to info theory and how it links to the design detection controversy. BTW< the presence of a communications network, especially a digital, coded one is -- based on induction and related analysis -- a strong indicator of purpose, knowledge, skill and artifice at work, i.e. design. But then, if you are committed to design not being seen in something like the cell, you will always be able to make up clever sounding objections. But that does not make the fact of a coded info system in the heart of the living cell go away, nor can it change our experience of what creates such systems, and what it takes to do so. KF kairosfocus

A few notes on the fact that the genetic code could have 'arbitrarily' been very different: First and foremost, as has been clearly pointed out on UD many times before, there are no physical or chemical forces between the nucleotides along the linear axis of DNA (where the information is) that causes the sequences of nucleotides to exist as they do. In fact as far as the foundational laws of the universe are concerned the DNA molecule, the protein molecule, and the mRNA molecule, don't even have to exist at all. In fact it can be firmly argued that the laws of nature are against the spontaneous formation of molecules that have the capacity to carry 'arbitrary' sequences of information in a meaningful 'encoded' way, such as Upright meticulously has laid out. This is one of the primary reasons why the origin of molecular life is, from a materialistic perspective, such a unfathomable mystery with no realistic resolution in sight. Here are a few brief notes along that perspective:

British Geneticist Robert Saunders Leaves a Highly Prejudiced Signature in His Review of “Signature in the Cell” - April 2012 Excerpt: Meyer points out a rather astonishing fact – about which there is no scientific controversy – regarding the arrangements of the nucleobases in DNA. There are absolutely no chemical affinities or preferences for which nucleobases bond with any particular phosphate and sugar molecule. The N-glycosidic bond works equally well with (A), (T), (G), or (C). And secondly, there are also no chemical bonds in the vertical axis between the nucleobases. What this means is that there are no forces of physical/chemical attraction and no chemical or physical law that dictates the order of the nucleobases; they can be arranged in a nearly infinite amount of different sequences. http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/04/04/british-geneticist-robert-saunders-leaves-a-highly-prejudiced-signature-in-his-review-of-signature-in-the-cell/ A Substantial Conundrum Confronting The Chemical Origin Of Life - August 2011 Excerpt: 1. Peptide bond formation is an endothermic reaction. This means that the reaction requires the absorption of energy: It does not take place spontaneously. 2. Peptide bond formation is a condensation reaction. It hence involves the net removal of a water molecule. So not only can this reaction not happen spontaneously in an aqueous medium, but, in fact, the presence of water inhibits the reaction. Salt in water only adds to this thermodynamic problem: ...even at concentrations seven times weaker than in today’s oceans. The ingredients of sea salt are very effective at dismembering membranes and preventing RNA units (monomers) from forming polymers any longer than two links (dimers). Creation Evolution News - Sept. 2002

The following videos have a fairly good overview of the major problems facing any naturalistic Origin Of Life scenario:

On the Origin of Life - The Insurmountable Problems Of Chemistry - Charles Thaxton PhD. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ye3oDDAxeE Stephen Meyer - Proteins by Design - Doing The Math - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6332250/

In fact, the DNA code 'could have', arbitrarily, been vastly different than the optimal code we find in life:

Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature. (Fazale Rana, -The Cell's Design - 2008 - page 177) “The genetic code’s error-minimization properties are far more dramatic than these (one in a million) results indicate. When the researchers calculated the error-minimization capacity of the one million randomly generated genetic codes, they discovered that the error-minimization values formed a distribution. Researchers estimate the existence of 10^18 possible genetic codes possessing the same type and degree of redundancy as the universal genetic code. All of these codes fall within the error-minimization distribution. This means of 10^18 codes few, if any have an error-minimization capacity that approaches the code found universally throughout nature.” Fazale Rana - From page 175; 'The Cell’s Design'

Dr. Rana, points out in this following podcast, at the 22 minute mark, that researchers produced a 'alternative genetic system', thus providing solid evidence that the code 'could have', 'arbitrarily', been vastly different than the optimal one we find in biological life:

Evolution of Synthetic DNA (turns out to support Intelligent Design) - Fazale Rana PhD. - podcast http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science-news-flash/evolution-of-synthetic-dna

Another point that I would like to make is that the chemical elements found in the universe have a very spooky balance,,, a spooky balance that 'just so happens' to be necessary for complex biological life to be possible. Michael Denton, author of both 'Evolution: A Theory In Crisis' & 'Nature's Destiny', comments on the surprising 'chemicals balanced for life' finding in the following two interviews:

Michael Denton - We Are Stardust - Uncanny Balance Of The Elements - Atheist Fred Hoyle's conversion to a Deist/Theist - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003877 "Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe" - August 2012 - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-08-21T14_43_59-07_00

The reason why I wanted to point out that the chemicals of the universe appear to be 'balanced for life' is because of the following fact:

Life Leads the Way to Invention - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: a cell is 10,000 times more energy-efficient than a transistor. “In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.” This and other amazing facts lead to an obvious conclusion: inventors ought to look to life for ideas.,,, Essentially, cells may be viewed as circuits that use molecules, ions, proteins and DNA instead of electrons and transistors. That analogy suggests that it should be possible to build electronic chips – what Sarpeshkar calls “cellular chemical computers” – that mimic chemical reactions very efficiently and on a very fast timescale. http://creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100226a

It seems, to achieve such 'unbelievable' energy efficiency, for such massive information processing in the cell, that the integrated coding between the DNA, RNA and Proteins of the cell apparently seems to be ingeniously programmed along the very stringent guidelines laid out by Landauer’s principle for ‘reversible computation’ in order to achieve such amazing energy efficiency.,,, The amazing energy efficiency possible with ‘reversible computation’ has been known about since Rolf Landauer laid out the principles for such programming decades ago, but as far as I know, due to the extreme level of complexity involved in achieving such ingenious 'reversible coding', has yet to be accomplish in any meaningful way for our computer programs even to this day:

Reversible computing Reversible computing is a model of computing where the computational process to some extent is reversible, i.e., time-invertible.,,, Although achieving this goal presents a significant challenge for the design, manufacturing, and characterization of ultra-precise new physical mechanisms for computing, there is at present no fundamental reason to think that this goal cannot eventually be accomplished, allowing us to someday build computers that generate much less than 1 bit's worth of physical entropy (and dissipate much less than kT ln 2 energy to heat) for each useful logical operation that they carry out internally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing#The_reversibility_of_physics_and_reversible_computing Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon - Charles H. Bennett Excerpt: Of course, in practice, almost all data processing is done on macroscopic apparatus, dissipating macroscopic amounts of energy far in excess of what would be required by Landauer’s principle. Nevertheless, some stages of biomolecular information processing, such as transcription of DNA to RNA, appear to be accomplished by chemical reactions that are reversible not only in principle but in practice.,,,, http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/bennett_shpmp_34_501_03.pdf

Thus it seems, although I haven't seen much detailed research in this area, that the 'chemistry of the universe' itself was designed for eventually achieving programming in bio-chemistry along the very stringent guidelines laid out by Landauer's principle for reversible computation. bornagain77

UB, Thank you for your detailed and precise argument. You are outlining a very important, often misunderstood , point: that in the cell specific knowledge of a completely arbitrary code (the genetic code) is implemented at least at two completely different, and independent, levels: 1) In the DNA protein coding genes, that are written according to the code, so that each gene corresponds to a specific functional sequence of AAs. 2) In the translation apparatus, and specifically in the 20 aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, 20 very complex proteins that are structured so that they can attach the correct aminoacid to the correct tRNA. WIthout those 20 complex proteins, no procedure of translation is possible. Both the DNA protein coding genes and the 20 synthetases are structured according to the same symbolic code, the genetic code. But the relation to the code is completely different: 1) in the DNA genes, the code is the foundation of the correspondence between the DNA sequence and the AA sequence. 2) In the 20 synthetases, the specific structure of each protein is the foundation of the biochemical function that allows each protein to correctly attach the right AA to the right tRNA, according to the genetic code. IF we consider that no translation is possible without the 20 synthetases, and that each synthetase is a very complex protein, translated from its DNA gene, we have a very beautiful case of "chicken and egg" problem: IOWs, a beautiful example of irreducible complexity. gpuccio

Thank you again Maus. Upright BiPed

UB:

I understand, but I don’t see it as being at odds. A spoken word is a material representation instantiated in the variations of local air pressure (sound).

Sure, sure. Delay line memory and like as well.

Quite frankly, I feel the same way about your number 3.

This is what we get for giving an infinite number of monkeys access to typewriters.

Only by the observation of function can we tell a material representation from any other arrangement of matter. Think Rosetta Stone.

True enough, but if that's what you're after then you need to make, in your argument, a clean separation between the system as it is and the system as we have knowledge of it. Especially with regards to 'function' specifically. Heiroglyphics and that Nazca Lines are obviously structured affairs for various reasons, but that observation is quite a bit different than watching the flywheel on a donkey engine spin about, lacking knowledge of the rest of the internals. I say 'need' but really it's just a personal kvetch for clarity. You can keep your own counsel on its accessibility. Maus

Hello Maus,

2. ‘instantiated’ generally appeals to, and is understood by myself, in your argument to be synonynous to ‘stored’. True and correct but at odds with ‘spoken words’ in your definition (1). A great help if you clear up early that you are talking about persistent representations rather than temporal/transient ones.

I understand, but I don’t see it as being at odds. A spoken word is a material representation instantiated in the variations of local air pressure (sound). My definition does not turn on the lifespan of the material representation, whether it be a pattern of sound waves, or a book burned after 20 years time.

3. Terribly wordy and a bit tortured: “The material representation and material object represented are distinct and different.” This ought be a definitional point as with (1); as should it be different then the representation of an object is that object and not a representation. Which is not what was assumed and so absurd. (If you want to get proofy with it.)

Quite frankly, I feel the same way about your number 3. In fact, I can’t make heads or tails of it. :)

4. This is terribly ambiguous or I’m being thick. I assume you mean that the physical storage medium is a physical thing-bob. But that the given notion of the encoding stream or representation ordered upon that medium is a purely arbitrary issue.

No, I mean that “ the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).”

5. I assume by this that you mean that for the information to be meaningful there must be an observer/recipient/interactor that can interface with the material storage but to which the arbitrary representation elicits a distinguished response. Loosely. If I have that correct, then no worries.

Close enough.

6. It’s wholly unnecessary for it to be ‘unambiguous’ in the sense that I understand your argument. Within the current context there are multiple codons that can signify a given amino acid. But there are also any manner on context specific decorations, etc, that can be bolted onto things that can change the translation environment. This is aside from any issues of general noise tolerance in the channel, etc. This one needs more work, or a clarification, to be useful.

If we could not see a representation and protocol in action, we could not (with confidence) confirm the transfer of recorded information. Only by the observation of function can we tell a material representation from any other arrangement of matter. Think Rosetta Stone.

I’ll stop here but I assume though that your entire point is to draw on analogous reasoning that DNA/Ribosomes/Proteins are in every manner the same — in the abstract — as a Jacquard loom, Turing machine, or Hard drive/Software/CPU set. If that is what you are after then I certainly don’t disagree with the general conclusion. But the argument itself is rather opaque as presented.

The argument is as I stated it above. Thanks for your input. Upright BiPed

Hello steveh,

In point 1, UB lists examples which at first seem to be “intended” to convey information (codes,languages,etc) but then later (sensory input, etc. etc.) not necessarily so (to a non-ID person of course).

Neither the source of the information nor its intent (or lack of thereof) is germane to the material observations. Also, your #2 seems to be devoid of any relevant observations.

In point 3 he starts off with “if that is true” which is already on shaky grounds, but then goes on to say that “that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents”.

So far (in #1) you’ve introduced an issue which is not germane to the observations, and then (in #2) you made some comments about my undermining worldviews, which is irrelevant. And with that you’ve determined that my use of the phrase ’if that is true’ is “already on shaky ground”. And what exactly was I talking about when I said “if that is true”? I was talking about something you’ve already agreed would be impossible to exist any other way. :|

What about the shadow that a pair of would-be robbers...

Seeing a robber’s shadow requires vision. If you see a shadow, it is not then a shadow traveling through your optical nerve. It is a material representation of that image which will be translated into a functional effect by a protocol in your visual cortex. The remainder of your post seems to be somewhat content free in relation to the challenge of showing a flaw in either the material observations or the reasoning. If you'd like to actually challenge the observations, I will be happy to answer. Upright BiPed

Hello Timothya,

You use “arbitrary” as a synonym for “not the same as”. I am unable to find any dictionary definition of “arbitrary” that matches this usage. Since you appear to rely on this word throughout your argument, I presume you attach some importance to your meaning for it.

It’s not really the word I rely upon; it the material observation which has been made. Proteins aren’t constructed from nucleotides. There is no inherent physical property in the pattern of cytosine-thymine-adenine which maps to leucine. That mapping is context specific, not an inexorable law. This has been shown in the lab. Perhaps it’s the Popper in me, but I simply don’t find it necessary to drone on about the number of different ways in which to express that reality, it is only the understanding of the observation that is important. That is why I took the time to explain my usage of the word at the time I used it. So if someone tells me that this thing is “materially arbitrary” to that thing and I have any background knowledge on the topic whatsoever, then perhaps I feel less of a need to run to dictionary in order to understand what it could possibly mean. You are free to call it whatever helps you understand. And if that is, as you say, your “only beef”, then I suspect you don’t intend on showing how the material observations are false, or that the reasoning is flawed. If you come up with something of material substance, then I’ll be happy to re-engage. Thanks. Upright BiPed

UB: Some nits. 2. 'instantiated' generally appeals to, and is understood by myself, in your argument to be synonynous to 'stored'. True and correct but at odds with 'spoken words' in your definition (1). A great help if you clear up early that you are talking about persistent representations rather than temporal/transient ones. 3. Terribly wordy and a bit tortured: "The material representation and material object represented are distinct and different." This ought be a definitional point as with (1); as should it be different then the representation of an object is that object and not a representation. Which is not what was assumed and so absurd. (If you want to get proofy with it.) 4. This is terribly ambiguous or I'm being thick. I assume you mean that the physical storage medium is a physical thing-bob. But that the given notion of the encoding stream or representation ordered upon that medium is a purely arbitrary issue. 5. I assume by this that you mean that for the information to be meaningful there must be an observer/recipient/interactor that can interface with the material storage but to which the arbitrary representation elicits a distinguished response. Loosely. If I have that correct, then no worries. 6. It's wholly unnecessary for it to be 'unambiguous' in the sense that I understand your argument. Within the current context there are multiple codons that can signify a given amino acid. But there are also any manner on context specific decorations, etc, that can be bolted onto things that can change the translation environment. This is aside from any issues of general noise tolerance in the channel, etc. This one needs more work, or a clarification, to be useful. I'll stop here but I assume though that your entire point is to draw on analogous reasoning that DNA/Ribosomes/Proteins are in every manner the same -- in the abstract -- as a Jacquard loom, Turing machine, or Hard drive/Software/CPU set. If that is what you are after then I certainly don't disagree with the general conclusion. But the argument itself is rather opaque as presented. Maus

timothya: The use of "arbitrary" is very common in information theory and mathematics. UB is not making this up. My dictionary includes things like: undetermined; not assigned a particular value; not restricted by law; subject to discretion. Maybe you need a better dictionary. Do you have a substantive concern with UB's argument? ----- BTW, DNA does not reproduce itself. It gets copied through a very detailed and complex and carefully orchestrated process involving a whole suite of coordinated systems. Eric Anderson

timothya- DNA is NOT a replicator. DNA gets replicated when the cell divides. That said the mRNA is a representation of the amino acids it encodes. The mRNA does not become the amino acids, the codons it contains is just a representation of them. That means there is knowledge somewhere- knowledge of what codon represents which amino acid. And if that wasn't enough the ribosome is a genetic compiler and it is not reducible to matter and energy- synthesized ribosomes do not function and if they were reducible to matter and energy they would. All that said the morons over on the septic zone just don't get it and they sure as heck cannot demonstrate necessity and chance can do such a thing- that is account for the ribosome nor transcrition and translation. But I am sure that won't stop them from bloviating away. Joe

Upright Biped said this:

And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

You use "arbitrary" as a synonym for "not the same as". I am unable to find any dictionary definition of "arbitrary" that matches this usage. Since you appear to rely on this word throughout your argument, I presume you attach some importance to your meaning for it. timothya

Hello Steveh, I am now driving home. I will be happy to return and respond. UD Editors: UD does not condone texting, emailing blogging or otherwise distracting oneself while driving. Upright BiPed

In point 1, UB lists examples which at first seem to be "intended" to convey information (codes,languages,etc) but then later (sensory input, etc. etc.) not necessarily so (to a non-ID person of course). In point 2 he says it's not logically possible to transfer information without ... I believe it is not "physically" possible - but "logically", I'm not so sure. In any case I can't help thinking UB could be undermining various in-tent worldviews in which information starts off, apprently, in some difficult to pin down immaterial "woo" dimension (my paraphrasing) and is conveyed to the here and now distant past by a what appear to me to be absolutely undetectable "magic" (ditto) mechanisms. In point 3 he starts off with "if that is true" which is already on shaky grounds, but then goes on to say that "that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents". What about the shadow that a pair of would-be robbers standing behind a rock throw on to the ground next to them? It informs an approaching victim that there are other people present; that one is much bigger than the other and appears to be holding a large club. These are not intended messages that the robbers meant to send but are nevertheless information which could save a life and require many bytes for me to pass on to you here. What if the intended victim went back to the scene the next day with a posse of local policemen (all clutching their beloved signed copies of How to calculate CSI&FSCI/O at a crime scene (Dembski, GEM, et al)) * and find footprints? The footprints represent information about the robbers (one was bare foot, the other wore size 10 shoes and walked with a pronounced limp, they walked west and then there seemed to be some sort of struggle, then there's a sort of grooved channel heading off to some bushes and a large set of single barefoot footprints leading away from that. Loads of information, none designed, none intended, all material, all subject to the laws of physics and certainly not arbitrary. In point 4 he starts off again with "if that is true" which is getting shakier by the minute and the rest is, afaict, a recap of point 3. By point 5 which starts of with "if that is true" again, I think he's lost the argument completely by now. But that's just me. * Above scenarios are imaginary, but this one humorously n-tuply so. steveh

Semi OT: Higher level epigenetic information deals another blow to the 'central dogma' (genetic reductionism: DNA makes RNA makes proteins) of neo-Darwinism:

Histone-modifying proteins, not histones, remain associated with DNA through replication - August 23, 2012 Excerpt: A study of Drosophila embryos,, found that parental methylated histones are not transferred to daughter DNA. Rather, after DNA replication, new nucleosomes are assembled from newly synthesized unmodified histones. "Essentially, all histones are going away during DNA replication and new histones, which are not modified, are coming in,",, "What this paper tells us," he continues, "is that these histone modifying proteins somehow are able to withstand the passage of the DNA replication machinery. They remained seated on their responsive binding sites, and in all likelihood they will re-establish histone modification and finalize the chromatin structure that allows either activation or repression of the target gene." http://phys.org/news/2012-08-histone-modifying-proteins-histones-dna-replication.html

related video:

The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA - Woodward - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXs8uShFMo

bornagain77

My only beef would be with the use of the term “arbitrary”. In which sense is the term meant?

You ask "how are you using the term" immediately after reading exactly how I was using the term. Which words in the following paraghraph are you having trouble with:

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

Upright BiPed

I must be a bit dim. DNA: 1. replicates itself more or less faithfully, except when it mutates at random 2. transcribes protein sequences via RNAs more or less faithfully based on its specific nucelotide sequence The information held in the original DNA sequence is preserved through both processes (though it may be modified in both by either base substitution or mis-transcription, which are both observed). Did we need the airy persiflage to know this? My only beef would be with the use of the term "arbitrary". In which sense is the term meant? 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice. 2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary. 3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty. 4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator. (pinched from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrary) Presumably not 3 or 4. In both cases (replication and transcription), the results are necessary - the results are determined by the physics of DNA chemistry. The only arbitrary component arises when random mutations result in a different replicant, or mis-transciption results in a different protein output. timothya

Excellent step by step breakdown of the 'information problem'. Definitely a keeper. Here is a video to help visualize the process:

Journey Inside The Cell - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg

Related notes:

The DNA Enigma - Where Did The Information Come From? - Stephen C. Meyer - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4125886/ DNA Enigma - Chemistry Does Not Create Information - Chris Ashcraft PhD. molecular biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5542033/ Programming of Life - Protein synthesis (DNA transcription, translation and folding) - May 2011 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erOP76_qLWA

also of note:

Honors to Researchers Who Probed Atomic Structure of Ribosomes - Robert F. Service Excerpt: "The ribosome’s dance, however, is more like a grand ballet, with dozens of ribosomal proteins and subunits pirouetting with every step while other key biomolecules leap in, carrying other dancers needed to complete the act.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200910.htm#20091015a Yonath on “ingeniously designed” ribosome? Everyone tells us she didn’t mean it … - February 2012 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/yonath-on-ingeniously-designed-ribosome-everyone-tells-us-she-didnt-mean-it/

Here is the ribosome animation that was done 'based on' the work from Yonath's Nobel winning group:

Ribosome animation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9vIOYlZXjE The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein-maker Trashes Errors Excerpt: The enzyme machine that translates a cell's DNA code into the proteins of life is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist...the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected over its precious protein products... To their further surprise, the ribosome lets go of error-laden proteins 10,000 times faster than it would normally release error-free proteins, a rate of destruction that Green says is "shocking" and reveals just how much of a stickler the ribosome is about high-fidelity protein synthesis. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090107134529.htm

As well, The Ribosome of the cell is found to process information very similarly to a CPU in a electronic computer:

Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems - 2012 David J D’Onofrio1*, David L Abel2* and Donald E Johnson3 Excerpt: The DNA polynucleotide molecule consists of a linear sequence of nucleotides, each representing a biological placeholder of adenine (A), cytosine (C), thymine (T) and guanine (G). This quaternary system is analogous to the base two binary scheme native to computational systems. As such, the polynucleotide sequence represents the lowest level of coded information expressed as a form of machine code. Since machine code (and/or micro code) is the lowest form of compiled computer programs, it represents the most primitive level of programming language.,,, An operational analysis of the ribosome has revealed that this molecular machine with all of its parts follows an order of operations to produce a protein product. This order of operations has been detailed in a step-by-step process that has been observed to be self-executable. The ribosome operation has been proposed to be algorithmic (Ralgorithm) because it has been shown to contain a step-by-step process flow allowing for decision control, iterative branching and halting capability. The R-algorithm contains logical structures of linear sequencing, branch and conditional control. All of these features at a minimum meet the definition of an algorithm and when combined with the data from the mRNA, satisfy the rule that Algorithm = data + control. Remembering that mere constraints cannot serve as bona fide formal controls, we therefore conclude that the ribosome is a physical instantiation of an algorithm.,,, The correlation between linguistic properties examined and implemented using Automata theory give us a formalistic tool to study the language and grammar of biological systems in a similar manner to how we study computational cybernetic systems. These examples define a dichotomy in the definition of Prescriptive Information. We therefore suggest that the term Prescriptive Information (PI) be subdivided into two categories: 1) Prescriptive data and 2) Prescribed (executing) algorithm. It is interesting to note that the CPU of an electronic computer is an instance of a prescriptive algorithm instantiated into an electronic circuit, whereas the software under execution is read and processed by the CPU to prescribe the program’s desired output. Both hardware and software are prescriptive. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-9-8.pdf

bornagain77