Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Human Evil, Music, Logic, and Himalayan Dung Heaps

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When I was in college I studied classical piano with Istvan Nadas who was a Hungarian concert pianist and a student of Bela Bartok. Istvan was a miraculous survivor of one of Hitler’s death camps. The stories he told me still haunt me to this day.

The commandant of the death camp liked to play Bach over the loudspeaker system while he had random inmates shot or hung, just for fun and entertainment. Nadas told me about the horror of listening to Bach while he watched his fellow inmates being machine-gunned to death in front of him. Nadas told me, “I knew every note of that music and could play it on the piano, but I also knew that if they discovered I was a concert pianist they would break all my fingers so I could never play the piano again.”

Nadas’s death camp was eventually “liberated” by the Russians. Istvan was one of only 150 survivors from a camp of thousands. He weighed 90 pounds and was suffering from dysentery and other diseases. While the Russians were transporting him on a train to what he knew would be a Russian internment camp he managed to jump out of the train as it slowed in the mountains. Under machine-gun fire he fled into the trees, was helped my local residents, and was eventually smuggled by an African American GI under a tarp in the back of a jeep through Check Point Charlie.

Nadas eventually discovered that every member of his extended family had either been gassed or otherwise tortured and exterminated by the Nazis, or shot by the Russians, with one exception: his mother, whom he eventually tracked down in Italy after the war.

One evening, after a concert at the university while I was studying piano with Nadas, which was conducted by a guest “contemporary composer” — it was just a bunch of random cacophony, very painful to listen to, but sold as legitimate music — I asked Nadas what he thought.

“It is a Himalayan dung heap,” he replied. (Nadas spoke six languages fluently, and had a way with words.) This phrase stuck in my mind, and it’s the perfect description of something so obviously stupid that it represents a pile of crap of Himalayan proportions.

The students and faculty applauded the Himalayan-dung-heap “music” because no one had the courage to point out the obvious, except for Nadas.

This is a perfect metaphor for Darwinism. Very few people in academia have the courage to point out the cacophony and illogic of Darwinian speculation.

It takes the courage of someone like Nadas, who was willing to jump off a train in the mountains under machine-gun fire, to tell the obvious truth.

Comments
Elizabeth Liddle:
Until then, I can only conclude that the original claim, to which I made my counter claim, is untestable.
So your counter-claim was nonsense? You made your claim without knowing what you meant by information and without knowing how it could be generated by chance and necessity sans intelligence? And you want to blame us for your over-reach? Here are the facts. You made an absurd claim which you had no means to demonstrate. Since that point, you have been engaged in nothing but coming up with excuses why you could not do what you claimed you could do. Now, let us not also forget that the reason you felt the original claim was false was because you thought you could demonstrate the truth of your counter-claim. So now what is your reason for believing the original claim was false? Is it because you cannot demonstrate the truth of your counter-claim? My, the logic that must take.Mung
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Meaningless Information Some people here seem to think that there can be information devoid of meaning. How someone can think this is a mystery to me, the very idea seems absurd. Elizabeth Liddle:
Others say it [information] has to have meaning.
As would any sane person. I ask again, are you aware of any definition of information which allows for the possibility that information may be devoid of meaning? Do tell. Elizabeth Liddle:
Well, Shannon information can be meaningless. That is why I think it is a poor metric for the kind of information we are interested in.
You're confused. Shannon information is a measure of information. It is not itself meaningless, nor does it measure "meaningless information," for there is no such thing as information devoid of meaning. Shannon information, as a measure of information, is distinct from the meaning of a given message and does not concern itself with the meaning of the message, but this is not the same as saying it is a measure of information devoid of meaning.Mung
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
And for examples of general English usage I would give: “a repository of information such as a database”; “on the basis of that information, I have changed my course of action”; “thank you for your useful information”.
I don't recall anyone asking you for examples. I think you were asked to provide a definition. Here was the question: Elizabeth, what is the meaning of information according to general English usage? When someone asks, what does this word [information] mean, the typical response is to provide a definition. Let's review. Elizabeth Liddle: "I simply don’t think that the source of the information in the genome (and I agree there is information in the genome) is a great mystery." Mung: "And what does she [Elizabeth Liddle] mean by information? Elizabeth Liddle: "According to most definitions that I am aware of. But certainly according to the its meaning in general English usage." Mung: Elizabeth, what is the meaning of information according to general English usage? And your answer is? What definition of information, according to the its meaning in general English usage, best exemplifies the information you think is present in the genome?Mung
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Please read the discussion here, noting the onward references. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
kf: I have no problem, as I said, with the idea that cells contain information transfer technology. What I need is a minimal description of what could be said to be information transfer technology. In other words, what is the essence of information transfer? We have excluded the imprint of an object on another object. I need a complete set of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria.Elizabeth Liddle
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: What is your technical experience in designing and developing digital information and communication technology? It seems to me that many of your objections would at once be resolved if you took such an experience base seriously. When I look at DNA, mRNA, tRNA etc in action, the patterns are at once very familiar. Familiar from what I have done with digital info systems. The specific technology is different, and the number of states used in the elements is different, but binary -- two state -- is not a defining characteristic of "digital." (Think about the high impedance state that is so often used in bus interfaces for just one instance of the utility of a third state. I loved the old 74LS245 for just that reason. An eight-line bidirectional bus interface chip, with easy enable/disable in a nice narrow DIL/DIP package. Used them by the handful.) And, digital information is being instantiated into the sequence of bases in DNA and RNA, and in the case of mRNA, it is being used as a control tape to drive an assembly line process, protein manufacture. I have already long since repeatedly pointed out how the tRNA coupler to hold the AAs is a standard CCA end, and that it locks to the carboxylic acid end of the AA, COOH. The AA is loaded by a special enzyme that conforms to the specific tRNA and loads it with the required AA. Experiments have already been done to reprogram some of the tRNAs to make them hold novel AAs and chain them into proteins. It is the side-branch that carries the key performance aspects of the AA, and it is coupled to the tRNA at the opposite end from the anticodon that key-lock fits the codon in the mRNA in sequence. This is a digital information system instantly recognisable from the materially similar ones we use in industry or for that matter in your cell phone. For operationalisation, we are looking at discrete state technologies, codes and action that transfers code into meaningful or functional output. All of these are observable or directly infer-able from observation, and all of these have been done to the point where the functioning of protein manufacture in the cell is now a standard bit of biology edu even at high school level. It is all over Youtube, for crying out loud. There is no reasonable question that we are dealing with an information system based on digital technology and using a code, the genetic code with its variants. Associated are control and regulatory codes that trigger the relevant action steps. Nor, that this is directly and materially comparable to similar processes in say a robot factory. As a matter of fact, I have a friend EP who has been using factory robot process flow and control diagrams to summarise and represent the processes in this context. Usefully so, too. In that context, when I see the sort of making mountains out of molehill objections that have been going on for quite a while now, I am not too amused. Especially, when the root of the ongoing exchanges here has been the fraudulent attack by the manufactured Internet personality MG, which has been repeatedly corrected but never acknowledged as reasonably responded to. Yes, it is possible to make up all sorts of objections to what informaiton is, to what codes and artificial computer languages are, to what an algorithm is, to what digital tech is, to what it means for info to be instantiated into specific and functional, complex patterns in matter and energy. But when we see the people who do this using PCs, cell phones, calculators and the like the bottom-line is that we never see them objecting to these technologies that rest on the selfsame ideas, definitions, metrics and approaches etc. So, the question is really: are we looking at selective hyperskepticism that objects because of a worldview level objection to this case, while exerting a double standard in accepting and using things that work in the very same way and are measured and warranted in the same way? If the real objection is a worldview objection, deal with it at that level. Start with the evident self referential incoherence of evolutionary materialism -- and please note the issue of mind and brain in the same context. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed:
Dr Liddle, In my previous post to you, the issue in front of me was not knowing what else to say to you. I have that same problem still. What can be said to someone who simply refuses the observations? What can be said to someone who summarily rejects the one proven method of finding the very thing she claims to be looking for? Honestly, what else can be said?
UBD: I readily acknowledge the gulf that communication (information? :)) barrier that exists between us. We are clearly coming at this issue from very different backgrounds, traditions, methodologies and even lexicons. But I appreciate your response, and am more than willing to keep trying to reach common ground. I am not at all clear what you mean by rejecting "the one proven method of finding the very thing she claims to be looking for". The method I am attempting to use is what is usually called the "scientific method", in which a crucial step is finding a way of measuring the thing-to-be-found or otherwise ascertaining its presence or absence. To do that we need what is called an "operational definition". And to derive such a thing, we need as clear a conceptual definition as possible, from which we systematically exclude all potential ambiguities. This is what I have been attempting to do - to operationalise your conceptual definition of information.
Nirenberg et al discovered the information in the genome by demonstrating it. They isolated the representations, deciphered the protocols, and documented the effects; the same way that all other recorded information has been discovered.
I'm sorry, UBP, but this is circular. But let me first say: I have no quarrel at all with the idea that the genome contains information; nor have I any quarrel with Nirenberg's methodology - he and his team systematically figured out which codons coded (hence the name) for which amino acids, and noted that the sequence of the codons in the DNA molecule, corresponded to the sequence of the amino acids in the protein. We are in complete agreement with this I think. What I need to do, however, is to abstract from that specific example (of codons amino acids, etc) a criterion by which any candidate for the category "information" can be so categorised. Clearly not all information is mediated by codons; not all messages are "about" proteins. So we need a general criterion by which we can look at either a process, or an object, and say: this is information transfer/this contains information. Now, unlike Dembski, you have chosen to define information in terms of process, rather than product. I actually think this is sensible - it seems to me that information is only as good as the use that is made of it, and I think Dembski's attempt to define information (or at least "complex specified information" in terms of a subset of patterns is deeply flawed (for a number of reasons). So while this was the kind of definition I originally had in mind when I made my counter-claim (indeed I assumed it whas the kind of definition the original claimant hadn in mind), I think that in many ways your conceptualisation is better - nearer to the common English usage of the word. And at one stage we seemed very close to getting that process operationalised. Then, as I have said a few times, I hit a snag - the word "protocol", which I hoped we had already operationalised, seemed to acquire something I had not anticipated - your "break in the causal chain" or "break in the physical chain". This requirement seemed to me to render your definition circular, because I assumed that by those phrases you meant some process that could not be attributed to Chance or Necessity. This is why I pointed out that tRNA is, essentially, a catalyst - it is an inert facilator of a chemical process. And I would characterise a catalyst neither as acausal nor as non-physical! However, if all you mean is "inert", or, more interestingly, "arbitrarily" (hence my discussion about the subset of possible tRNA molecules we actually find in living cells), then we are back on track. And I have tried to incorporate that concept into my latest operationalisation.
Rather than dealing with these apparently unsophisticated facts, you’ve declared them irrelevant to your simulation, and have gone off on a debatefest on how to confirm the presence of information. You then wonder why I won’t join in, and if I throw up my hands, you suggest that the appropriate view of the situation is that I have lost interest in the issues – and oh yes, of course – you still don’t have an operational definition of information.
But UBP - if I don't have an operational definition of information, then we can't confirm its presence, and if we can't confirm its presence, then I can't support my claim! Nor can you consider it unsupported! Of course it's not "irrelevant" - it's absolutely vital! But perhaps that will be clearer in light of what I have written above. I do hope so. I'm certainly glad that you have not lost interest (though you'd have every reason to, given your other present concerns) but I certainly wonder why you won't "join in" with the project of operationalising my claim (and, by inversion, the counter-claim). It's not that I have any doubt that Nirenberg was finding "information" in the genome, nor about his methods for doing so - figuring out what mapped to what. The problem is defining what constitues a "mapping". After all, a footprint maps to a foot, a meteor maps to a crater, but we do not necessarily say that what we have, in a footprint, or a meteor creator, is "information" (although we could, and in many cases we do). And the second, at least, is created by Chance and Necessity. And so clearly, it should be excluded from the definition, or my claim is supported now. So what I am trying to do is define a clear criterion, or set of criteria, tht can be applied to any system, and which will tell us not what the relevant protocols are, but whether they are can be considered part of information transfer system.
In my field of research, the people at my level have been watching output for years (over 30 years for me) and we typically don’t stand around wondering what we are doing. Items such as sample integrity and retrieval methodology are far more important than wondering what we are looking for. But, I wouldn’t want you to think we don’t admire a good operational definition when we see one. Everyone at UD knows and appreciates the value of definitions. When they are not being legitimately used as a tool in understanding, they can always get a job as an impediment to that very same end.
I think we are still at cross-purposes! It's not that there is anything "admirable" about an operational definition, it's just that if you are trying to detect the presence or absence of something, you need one. You obvioiusly don't need one for things you aren't trying to detect. for example, in quality control, you don't need an operational definition of your product - you can see it's there, on the assembly line! But you do need an operational definition of quality - what the rejection criteria are. Perhaps that's a good way of looking at what I am trying to do here: establish quality control criteria such that you can look at my simulation and say: y"es, the protocols here pass the criteria required for an adequate product. I declare this certified Information TM" (oops don't seem to have superscript tags).
I’d hate for there to be any lingering impediments in this conversation, so please allow me to take a stab at it. The following is the definition we had both contributed to right before the train left the track. Even though you agreed to the observations along the way, I see you now claim the definition is nonsense. But since its two-thirds your willing contribution, perhaps you’ll know best how to fix it:
Information is a representation of a discrete object/thing embedded in an arrangement of matter or energy, where the object/thing represented is entirely dissociated from the representation, but where the association of the two can be established by means of a protocol instantiated in the receiver of the information.
No, it is not nonsense. But it is not operationalised. I have tried to operationalise it above. I am still waiting for your response!
Allow me to make a couple of suggestions, and then you can tell me if you think it makes sense from the observations.
Information is a representation of a discrete object/thing embedded in an arrangement of matter or energy, where the object/thing represented is entirely dissociated from the representation, but where the association of the two can be established by means of a protocol instantiated in [or accessed by] the receiver of the information. Information can be demonstrated to exist if these discrete representations and discrete protocols interact to cause a discrete output constrained by that interaction. If the rise of this phenomenon is observed to be the product of random contingency + natural law, then the representations stated above will output a system which reproduces those representations. Since I already know you have some issues with what a protocol is/does, let me just add that a protocol is what allows a discrete representation to be a discrete representation. It allows a bridge (a relationship to exist) over the observed physical gap found in all forms of recorded information. It’s what makes information possible by allowing dissociated things to have an association with one another; something to represent something else. In the cell, it provides a means for a dissociated representation to constrain the output of the system, while remaining dissociated. In other words, an apple doesn’t have to be called an apple, so something has to establish that relationship. If this phenomenon is as you say it is, ie the product of physical law, then it will be physical law that establishes these relationships, and it will provide the representations and protocols required for the information to have an effect.
Again, this is a helpful clarification of the concept at issue. It is not, however, operationalised. But thank you for it. I would still like your comments on my attempted operationalisation. It seems to me that it conforms pretty well to your conceptual definitions above, but, of course, applied specifically to my proposal.
There is one other thing I’d like to comment on. You seem to want to characterize these observations as my own personal conceptualization. That seems rather odd since you yourself walked through the observations with me, and remained in general agreement throughout.
Only because there are many definitions of information in regular use, including some in less regular use, and I want to make sure that I am not merely producing information by some trivial one. For example, Dembski does not deny that information (measured as Shannon Information, in bits) can be generated by Chance - his claim is that Complex Specified information cannot be (or is vanishingly unlikely to be). That is why I want to ensure that you, as the one who challenged my claim, sign off on the definition of information you have in mind. The issue is not whether I agree with your definition (you can define Information as "anything at a temperature of more than 100 degrees Kelvin" if you like, or "made of rubber and shaped like a chicken". What matters is what it is, and whether, knowing what it is, my claim that it can be generated by Chance and Necessity only still stands. As for the "observations" - I'm not sure what you mean by "observations" in this context - we are talking about definitions. We cannot deduce a definition from an observation! Perhaps that is the root of the difficulty here.
In any case, it is not my personal conceptualization that the code is a code; Francis Crick, James Watson, Rosalind Franklin, and the physical evidence had a role to play in that. It’s not my idea that a mapping exists between nucleic acids and amino acids; Nirenberg, Khorana, Holley, the NIH, and New York University Medical School came up with that one.
Of course not. What matters is what constitutes a "mapping". This really does seem to be at the root of the problem between us. Not so much an Apples and Oranges problem as an Apples and Appletrees problem. I do not deny that those mappings exist. What I want to know is what, in your view, makes the mapping between a codon and an amino acid "information", and the mapping between a foot and a footprint not "information". We are getting there with the idea of an inert, and arbitrary mediator of the mapping. But do you see why we have been at cross-purposes?
Three of them shared the Nobel prize for their work, and I had nothing to do with it. I’m not the one who noticed there are no bonds between the nucleotides that determine their order. I’m sure some under-appreciated practitioner somewhere figured that out long before I would have – so it wasn’t me. The same can be said for whomever discovered that the mRNA input does not directly interact with the amino acid output, and also to those who demonstated how the system accomplishes that fact.
Indeed, but see above.
I didn’t apply the chicken and egg paradox to biology first either, and I don’t know who did. I didn’t coin the phrase semiosis, or the epistemic cut or cybernetic cut. It wasn’t me who compared the patterns in genetic information with those from chance and law, observing nothing in common between them – as in there being a a fundamental distinction. That was Trevors an Abel. It also certainly wasn’t me who said there are boundary conditions within mechanisms which are irreducible to pure physical law; that was Polanyi’s conclusion. So it seems to me that your characterization is easily a waste of time if given too much credence. All I have done is observe the observations that exist, but I have nothing to do with the fact that they are the observations that exist.
This seems confused to me. And unnecessarily complicated. It is often said, by ID proponents, that Chance and Necessity cannot generate Information (or, at least, Information of a certain kind, or degree). My counter-claim is that they can. However, whether to demonstrate the ID claim, or my counter-claim, we need a clear operational definition of Information, as it is used in the ID claim,, or failing that, in any one ID proponent's claim. I originally took Dembski's, as I figured that was what people were talking about here (even though, IMO, it is insufficiently operationalised). I've now found out that not every one here accepts Dembski's definition, conceptual or operational, and some have their own. That's fine. I'm willing to take on any. It may be that someone here has a conceptual definition of information for which my claim is false. But we can make a start with the one you suggest. As long as we can operationalise it!
This all brings us back to where we started, except this time you have the answers required by the questions you asked. If the foundation of the argumnent has been given to you in a way that you can understand (and it has) and if you are beginning to grasp the issues you face, then this phase should be near complete. You should have every opportunity to prove your case. From the observations, you now know what information is, and you know how to demonstrate its existence.
Not until we have an agreed operational definition :) I hope we are nearly there.
This point in the exchange also gives you another opportunity. One to finally address your false claim that ID proponents had not made their case. If ID proponents had not made their case, then you would have no need to prove yours to them. The fact that you’re having to set out to prove your case, should be a clear indication of how willing you are to integrate your terms.
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. I hope that is now clear. Because of course, it is that very case that I propose to dismantle. If it didn't exist at all, there would be nothing to dismantle! On the other hand, if it were what I'd call a "made case", I wouldn't be able to dismantle it! And I think I can. But I hope that has cleared that up. Though I confess to being surprised that anyone could possibly have interpreted my words to mean that I thought that no case had been attempted! Still, I guess it's possible that you might have thoguht that I considered all ID claims mere assertions unsupported by any attempt at producing evidence or making an argument. Well, let the record show: I don't think this. And I apologise if I inadvertently gave the impression I did.
I happen to be someone who finds it pretty easy to admit error, and do, frequently. If I find myself making an error, I am quick to correct it – if someone points out an error, or an inconsistency (apparent or real) I am quick to sort it out, and if someone convinces me I am in error (and it happpens) I am quick to acknowledge it.
You have thus far refused to acknowledge that one cannot logically be testing a falsification of an ID argument, while simultaneously claiming it doesn’t exist.
It's a fair cop. In mitigation, I plead that I did not understand the charge. I do now. I did not mean what you thought I was saying, but as I now understand what you thought I was saying, I willingly clarify that I did not mean what you thought I meant. Yes, there is an ID argument. It's why I'm interested in discussing it. I think it is fallacious. Thank you, Upright BiPed, for being willing to continue with this. I appreciate it, and the fact that you do so in the face of frustration and grave family concerns. Take your time, and all the best to you and your family. LizzieElizabeth Liddle
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
UPD: we seem to have cross-posted. I will look at your new post now.Elizabeth Liddle
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: I note that you still have not responded to my operationalisation of what I think is your conceptual definition. I have no idea what you mean by: "the search for an operational definition is just as fallible as any other of man’s good ideas." I can only conclude that you still do not understand what an operational definition is, and why it is critically important to supporting a claim empirically. My original claim was a counter-claim to the claim that natural processes (Chance and Necessity as operationalised earlier) cannot generate information. For that claim to be upheld, and for my counter-claim to be tested, we need to agree on an operational definition of "information". I have tried to operationalise the conceptual definitions you have offered, despite fairly intractable concepts like "break in the causal chain" and unpacked concepts like "protocol". I have now done so, and you have refused to comment on it, despite the fact that it has been here on this thread for quite a while, and you have noted the post, and made comments about the post. But about that operational definition you have not ventured so much as a footnote. It took me a while to understand what you were on about with your oblique references to Nirenberg. I took it for granted that we both understood that each possible DNA/RNA triplet has a corresponding amino acid, and that the correspondence is mediated by set of tRNA molecules with a codon binding site at one end and an amino binding site at the other. My difficulty was trying to abstract the relationship between this fact to your concept of a "break in the causal chain". However, I think I managed it in the end. I guess I'll keep this thread bookmarked in the hope that at some stage you will look at my operationalization and tell me whether or not it corresponds to your conceptualisation, and if not, why not. Until then, I can only conclude that the original claim, to which I made my counter claim, is untestable. Because you can't test a claim without first operationalising it. But there is no hurry. My best wishes to you and your family. I do hope your daughter is recovering. My own son is 17, and the thought of anything bad happening to him is like ice in the soul. I try not to go there. My heart goes out to anyone who has to. In peace. LizzieElizabeth Liddle
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle, In my previous post to you, the issue in front of me was not knowing what else to say to you. I have that same problem still. What can be said to someone who simply refuses the observations? What can be said to someone who summarily rejects the one proven method of finding the very thing she claims to be looking for? Honestly, what else can be said? Nirenberg et al discovered the information in the genome by demonstrating it. They isolated the representations, deciphered the protocols, and documented the effects; the same way that all other recorded information has been discovered. Rather than dealing with these apparently unsophisticated facts, you’ve declared them irrelevant to your simulation, and have gone off on a debatefest on how to confirm the presence of information. You then wonder why I won’t join in, and if I throw up my hands, you suggest that the appropriate view of the situation is that I have lost interest in the issues – and oh yes, of course – you still don’t have an operational definition of information. In my field of research, the people at my level have been watching output for years (over 30 years for me) and we typically don’t stand around wondering what we are doing. Items such as sample integrity and retrieval methodology are far more important than wondering what we are looking for. But, I wouldn’t want you to think we don’t admire a good operational definition when we see one. Everyone at UD knows and appreciates the value of definitions. When they are not being legitimately used as a tool in understanding, they can always get a job as an impediment to that very same end. I’d hate for there to be any lingering impediments in this conversation, so please allow me to take a stab at it. The following is the definition we had both contributed to right before the train left the track. Even though you agreed to the observations along the way, I see you now claim the definition is nonsense. But since its two-thirds your willing contribution, perhaps you’ll know best how to fix it:
Information is a representation of a discrete object/thing embedded in an arrangement of matter or energy, where the object/thing represented is entirely dissociated from the representation, but where the association of the two can be established by means of a protocol instantiated in the receiver of the information.
Allow me to make a couple of suggestions, and then you can tell me if you think it makes sense from the observations.
Information is a representation of a discrete object/thing embedded in an arrangement of matter or energy, where the object/thing represented is entirely dissociated from the representation, but where the association of the two can be established by means of a protocol instantiated in [or accessed by] the receiver of the information. Information can be demonstrated to exist if these discrete representations and discrete protocols interact to cause a discrete output constrained by that interaction. If the rise of this phenomenon is observed to be the product of random contingency + natural law, then the representations stated above will output a system which reproduces those representations.
Since I already know you have some issues with what a protocol is/does, let me just add that a protocol is what allows a discrete representation to be a discrete representation. It allows a bridge (a relationship to exist) over the observed physical gap found in all forms of recorded information. It’s what makes information possible by allowing dissociated things to have an association with one another; something to represent something else. In the cell, it provides a means for a dissociated representation to constrain the output of the system, while remaining dissociated. In other words, an apple doesn’t have to be called an apple, so something has to establish that relationship. If this phenomenon is as you say it is, ie the product of physical law, then it will be physical law that establishes these relationships, and it will provide the representations and protocols required for the information to have an effect. There is one other thing I’d like to comment on. You seem to want to characterize these observations as my own personal conceptualization. That seems rather odd since you yourself walked through the observations with me, and remained in general agreement throughout. In any case, it is not my personal conceptualization that the code is a code; Francis Crick, James Watson, Rosalind Franklin, and the physical evidence had a role to play in that. It’s not my idea that a mapping exists between nucleic acids and amino acids; Nirenberg, Khorana, Holley, the NIH, and New York University Medical School came up with that one. Three of them shared the Nobel prize for their work, and I had nothing to do with it. I’m not the one who noticed there are no bonds between the nucleotides that determine their order. I’m sure some under-appreciated practitioner somewhere figured that out long before I would have – so it wasn’t me. The same can be said for whomever discovered that the mRNA input does not directly interact with the amino acid output, and also to those who demonstated how the system accomplishes that fact. I didn’t apply the chicken and egg paradox to biology first either, and I don’t know who did. I didn’t coin the phrase semiosis, or the epistemic cut or cybernetic cut. It wasn’t me who compared the patterns in genetic information with those from chance and law, observing nothing in common between them - as in there being a a fundamental distinction. That was Trevors an Abel. It also certainly wasn’t me who said there are boundary conditions within mechanisms which are irreducible to pure physical law; that was Polanyi’s conclusion. So it seems to me that your characterization is easily a waste of time if given too much credence. All I have done is observe the observations that exist, but I have nothing to do with the fact that they are the observations that exist. This all brings us back to where we started, except this time you have the answers required by the questions you asked. If the foundation of the argumnent has been given to you in a way that you can understand (and it has) and if you are beginning to grasp the issues you face, then this phase should be near complete. You should have every opportunity to prove your case. From the observations, you now know what information is, and you know how to demonstrate its existence. This point in the exchange also gives you another opportunity. One to finally address your false claim that ID proponents had not made their case. If ID proponents had not made their case, then you would have no need to prove yours to them. The fact that you’re having to set out to prove your case, should be a clear indication of how willing you are to integrate your terms.
I happen to be someone who finds it pretty easy to admit error, and do, frequently. If I find myself making an error, I am quick to correct it – if someone points out an error, or an inconsistency (apparent or real) I am quick to sort it out, and if someone convinces me I am in error (and it happpens) I am quick to acknowledge it.
You have thus far refused to acknowledge that one cannot logically be testing a falsification of an ID argument, while simultaneously claiming it doesn’t exist.Upright BiPed
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT
In my post on 7/14 I forgot to properly thank Kairosfocus and Mung for their involvement in the conversation; KF for his precision, and Mung for keeping a defiant eye on the ball. Thank you to both. - - - - - - - - - Mung to Liddle:
I’d bet that if we were to go back and look at the history of this entire discussion we would discover that Upright BiPed never did have in mind a “pattern” being transmitted from one generation to the next. That was something entirely of your own making. I think we’ll also find it very clear what Upright BiPed did in fact have in mind. Let me give one huge hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M....._Nirenberg
Very perceptive, Mung. To the number of times I have brought it up (going back deep into this conversation) Dr Liddle’s responses have ranged from ignoring the relevance (#77) to outright dismissal (#88) if I should bring it up again. In response to her dismissal I typed out the following response, but never posted it:
Nirenberg on his way to Moscow to present his results, talking on the phone to Matthaei back at the laboratory… Nirenberg: “Johann, I have decided not to present our results yet”. Matthaei: “What?! Are you nuts - we’ve begun to crack the language of life! This is what we’ve been working for, Marshal, it’s genetic information for crying out loud!! In fact, we just finished up with new results, and guess what – CCC is mapped to Proline.” Nirenberg: “Wow that’s fantastic…but still, how will anyone know what we are talking about? I mean, c’mon Johann, we don’t even have an operational definition of what it means for one thing to be mapped to another” Matthaei: “What tha-- Nirengerg: “What if someone wants to repeat the experiment? They can’t do it without an operational definition of information … we’ll be made fools! … Or what about the percentage of reproductive fidelity … what’s the fidelity threshold!!! … and what about the probabilities that the pattern will replicate itself … or what abou-- Matthaei: “Marshall, you are not hearing me, man. CCC is mapped to Proline, in the same way that UUU was mapped to phenylalanine!?!?! The pattern of bases is a signal mapped to the addition of specific amino acids … IT’S A CODE. Nirenberg: “a signal ?!? ... you don’t even know what a ‘signal’ is … a mapping ?!? ... a code ?!?
At the very start of this conversation, I made the remark that the search for an operational definition is just as fallible as any other of man’s good ideas. Dr Liddle wondered at the time what I meant by that. Apparently it never occurred to her that asking the questions might not be the problem. In any case, it should not go un-noticed that the person who is struggling against all odds to find a way to detect recorded information is the same Dr Liddle who ignores how it has been found before - every time it’s been found before.Upright BiPed
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT
Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle:
I simply don’t think that the source of the information in the genome (and I agree there is information in the genome) is a great mystery.
And what does she mean by “information”? Elizabeth Liddle:
According to most definitions that I am aware of. But certainly according to the its meaning in general English usage.
By which she means? Elizabeth, what is the meaning of information according to general English usage? Unless that’s not really what you meant. (I always have to now keep in mind that you didn’t really mean what you say.)
Yes, I meant what I said. And for examples of general English usage I would give: “a repository of information such as a database”; “on the basis of that information, I have changed my course of action”; “thank you for your useful information”.
My claim is that information can rise from Chance and Necessity only, which would infirm the claim of ID.
Indeed, that is your claim. You still have not provided the demonstration. You blame that failure on us.
I don’t blame it on anyone. I’m ready to begin my project once we have operationalised the claim so that it reflects your (or anyone here’s ) conception definition of information.
You say that it is our fault because we have not told you what you mean by information.
Nope. I did not say that.
How bizarre is that?
Totally, because I did not say it.
Tell us what you mean by information.
I’ve told you. My claim is, I believe, robust to a number of definitions.
Why don’t you provide an operational definition? It was, after all, your claim.
Because there is no point in my operationalising a definition that does not correspond to the conceptual definition any of you guys are using. It is your counter-claim (that mine is false) that I want to infirm. So, clearly, the conceptual definition I need to operationalise is the one that corresponds to your counter claim.
Here, let me help: My operational definition of information is….
Mung, it seems that you do not know what an operational definition is. That’s fine. But please find out.
Elizabeth Liddle:
I will, however, say that my inference that you had “lost interest” in this conversation was not derived from your short absence from the board, but from the content of your last post, which did not even address my operationalisation…
This is just incredibly dishonest.
No, it is not.
Upright BiPed has repeatedly addressed your “operationalization” in numerous previous posts.
Upright BiPed has repeatedly given me conceptual definitions to try to operationalise. At one stage, I thought I was pretty close. Then when we got to a key concept, we hit a difficulty.
Has it in some way changed from when you first introduced it?
This makes no sense. Upright BiPed has never given me an operational definition. I did not even ask for one (that’s my job). What he did give me was a conceptual definition to operationalize. However, as I said, when I was nearly there, I hit a difficulty. I hope that that is now resolved.
Upright Biped, my prayers are with you and your wife, daughter, and family. May His love be with you all.
Mine too, UPD.
Elizabeth Liddle:
I perceive no agreement at all among the posters on this site as to what information is, or on what particularly type of information is postulated to be the signature of intelligent processes.
Another lie.
No, it is not a lie. My perception may be wrong, but it is true that that is my perception.
Elizabeth Liddle:
Upright Biped said that it [information] had to arise from some kind of protocol that included symbols.
A lie.
No, it is not a lie. Possibly it may be a misunderstanding, but that is exactly what I have been trying to resolve.
Elizabeth Liddle:
Dembski says it [information] has to be both complex and specified.
A lie.
No, not a lie. Mung, I do not lie. I have told you this. It may be a mistake, in which case, I’d appreciate correction, but it is not a lie.
Elizabeth Liddle:
Others say it [information] has to have meaning.
FINALLY! You’re aware of meaningless information? Do tell. According to what definition of information?
Well, Shannon information can be meaningless. That is why I think it is a poor metric for the kind of information we are interested in. Mung, I tolerate most things, but one thing, as I think I’ve said, I find personally hard to tolerate, is accusations of dishonesty. I am not dishonest, and I do not lie. If you think I have lied, then I appreciate being asked for clarification. I do not appreciate simply being told I am a liar. I am not. I do not accuse others of lying, and I do not expect to be so accused myself. I assume that everyone here is posting in good faith, as am I.Elizabeth Liddle
July 18, 2011
July
07
Jul
18
18
2011
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Upright Biped said that it [information] had to arise from some kind of protocol that included symbols.
A lie. Elizabeth Liddle:
Dembski says it [information] has to be both complex and specified.
A lie. Elizabeth Liddle:
Others say it [information] has to have meaning.
FINALLY! You're aware of meaningless information? Do tell. According to what definition of information?Mung
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle: I perceive no agreement at all among the posters on this site as to what information is, or on what particularly type of information is postulated to be the signature of intelligent processes. Another lie.Mung
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
I will, however, say that my inference that you had “lost interest” in this conversation was not derived from your short absence from the board, but from the content of your last post, which did not even address my operationalisation...
This is just incredibly dishonest. Upright BiPed has repeatedly addressed your "operationalization" in numerous previous posts. Has it in some way changed from when you first introduced it? Upright Biped, my prayers are with you and your wife, daughter, and family. May His love be with you all.Mung
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
I simply don’t think that the source of the information in the genome (and I agree there is information in the genome) is a great mystery.
And what does she mean by "information"? Elizabeth Liddle:
According to most definitions that I am aware of. But certainly according to the its meaning in general English usage.
By which she means? Elizabeth, what is the meaning of information according to general English usage? Unless that's not really what you meant. (I always have to now keep in mind that you didn't really mean what you say.)
My claim is that information can rise from Chance and Necessity only, which would infirm the claim of ID.
Indeed, that is your claim. You still have not provided the demonstration. You blame that failure on us. You say that it is our fault because we have not told you what you mean by information. How bizarre is that? Tell us what you mean by information. Why don't you provide an operational definition? It was, after all, your claim. Here, let me help: My operational definition of information is....Mung
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT
Ah, but was it a "neutral mutation" or a "beneficial mutation" which has lead to the total replacement of the population of non-italicized symbols by a population of italicized symbols?Ilion
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
Can the italics be ended? If they reproduce more than the non-italics, well, that's just evolution.Mung
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Oh, and yes, I was talking about protein coding.
And how was anyone here supposed to know that?Mung
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle, your characterization of my involvement in this conversation as “having lost interest” is not only patently opportunistic, it is also intellectually repugnant. It is exactly the kind of output from Darwinian ideologues that has been documented at UD for years on end, even if those putting it up are nice little old ladies practicing neuroscience in the United Kingdom. In truth, my wife and I have had a medical emergency with our 21 year old daughter for the past two days, and is it happens, concerning myself with some tomography and a spinal tap was slightly higher on my list than debating with you. I am traveling home today and will perhaps have an opportunity to respond later.
Upright BiPed: I am very sorry to hear this news; my best wishes to your daughter and your family. I will, however, say that my inference that you had "lost interest" in this conversation was not derived from your short absence from the board, but from the content of your last post, which did not even address my operationalisation, and in which you said:
If this conversation should move past this stage and return to something productive, then I may elect to rejoin. As clearly evidenced by your participation here, at this point no one has ever demonstrated the rise of information from physical law, and it is that information that makes life possible and is the backbone of biology. With that said, I thank you for the talk and bid you farewell.
I will be delighted if you decide to give my operationalisation a second look. Your response above seemed to me to be a clear decline.
By the way, GP is without exception my favorite contributor to UD, yet he and I often disagree. (So much for UD being the echo chamber that your colleagues constantly allude to. That accusation coming from the Darwinian orthodoxy is what Freud might have seen similar to being the ‘return of the repressed’).
Yes, gpuccio is one of my favorite contributors as well :) And I am delighted to find that UD is not an echo chamber. I am sure who "my colleagues" are supposed to be in this context, but I would agree that disagreement is a sign of life. Indeed, I regard it as a healthy sign that I myself am still here :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle, your characterization of my involvement in this conversation as "having lost interest" is not only patently opportunistic, it is also intellectually repugnant. It is exactly the kind of output from Darwinian ideologues that has been documented at UD for years on end, even if those putting it up are nice little old ladies practicing neuroscience in the United Kingdom. In truth, my wife and I have had a medical emergency with our 21 year old daughter for the past two days, and is it happens, concerning myself with some tomography and a spinal tap was slightly higher on my list than debating with you. I am traveling home today and will perhaps have an opportunity to respond later. - - - - - - - - - - - - - By the way, GP is without exception my favorite contributor to UD, yet he and I often disagree. (So much for UD being the echo chamber that your colleagues constantly allude to. That accusation coming from the Darwinian orthodoxy is what Freud might have seen similar to being the ‘return of the repressed’).Upright BiPed
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
gpuccio, I spent a couple of months with Upright Biped, trying to operationalise his conceptual definition of information. The above is my attempt to do so. He has not commented. If it does not cover your conceptual definition, then we could start again, I guess. But this raises a much larger point: ID is a theory that depends, crucially, on a claim about information, and the processes that can generate it. I perceive no agreement at all among the posters on this site as to what information is, or on what particularly type of information is postulated to be the signature of intelligent processes. Upright Biped said that it had to arise from some kind of protocol that included symbols. Dembski says it has to be both complex and specified. Others say it has to have meaning. All these are conceptually different, but potentially lead to testable hypotheses, as long as they can be operationalised. I have attempted to operationalise Upright Biped's, but he's vanished, apparently because he thinks I haven't understood his definition. But that is the whole point - if you can't cast your operationalise your definition, then you can't make it part of a scientific claim. And to operationalise your definition, it has to be couched in totally unambiguous terms. i.e. so that it cannot be misunderstood.Elizabeth Liddle
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: I disagree. The point is not that "information" can arise in your system. Maybe it can. We can see. The point is not even that functional information can arise in your system. Maybe it can. We can see. The point of ID is that functional complex information cannot arise in that system, unless enough active information has been added to it. But to understand the difference, we must understand the detail of the definitions. If you want, we can proceed.gpuccio
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
Well, as Upright BiPed has lost interest, is anyone else interested in taking up my challenge? My claim is that information can rise from Chance and Necessity only, which would infirm the claim of ID. I propose to demonstrate this using a simulation in which the starting conditions comprise no more than a set of rules of necessity (if this, then that), plus random input from a flat probability distribution. My claim is that an appropriate set of rules of necessity, coupled with chance input, can result in a population of self-replicating virtual organisms in which information is systematically transferred from parent to daughter organism. I have conceptualised and operationalised the hypothesis as follows: Conceptual Hypothesis: that information can arise from Chance and Necessity only. Operationalised hypothesis: That, starting only with non-self-replicating entities and a physics-and-chemistry plus random kinetics, self-replicating “virtual organisms” can emerge that satisfy the following criteria: 1. The daughter entities must resemble the parent entities with a significant degree of fidelity (measure and threshold to be determined). In other words the pattern embodied in my “virtual organisms” must be transmitted from generation with some measurable degree of fidelity 2. The nature of the pattern itself must contribute to the efficient maintenance and reproduction of the “virtual organism” (i.e. be more effective than some randomly substituted pattern), 3. The process of replication must involve transfer of information from some pattern embodied in the “organism” (e.g. a polymer-like string) via an inert intermediate product of the organism to a secondary product that serves some kind of self-maintenance or self-replication function for the virtual organism. I propose that if I succeed, I have supported my conceptual hypothesis and thus infirmed ID. If anyone disagrees, perhaps they would like to articulate the grounds on which they do so. Thanks.Elizabeth Liddle
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Oh, and yes, I was talking about protein coding.Elizabeth Liddle
July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Yes, Mung, and those "rules" are in fact, a set of tRNA molecules. Right? A set in which each has a codon site at one end and an amino acid site at the other, right?Elizabeth Liddle
July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
That’s interesting – do you have a cite?
wow. just wow.
The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. The code defines how sequences of three nucleotides, called codons, specify which amino acid will be added next during protein synthesis. With some exceptions,[1] a three-nucleotide codon in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid. Because the vast majority of genes are encoded with exactly the same code (see the RNA codon table), this particular code is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic code, though in fact there are many variant codes. For example, protein synthesis in human mitochondria relies on a genetic code that differs from the standard genetic code. Not all genetic information is stored using the genetic code. All organisms' DNA contains regulatory sequences, intergenic segments, chromosomal structural areas, and other non-coding DNA that can contribute greatly to phenotype. Those elements operate under sets of rules that are distinct from the codon-to-amino acid paradigm underlying the genetic code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code
Mung
July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Mung:
I simply don’t think that the source of the information in the genome (and I agree there is information in the genome) is a great mystery.
According to what definition of information?
According to most definitions that I am aware of. But certainly according to the its meaning in general English usage. In many ways, DNA can be regarded as a database, which the cell accesses as needed.Elizabeth Liddle
July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Ilion:
“But my point, I guess, is that these are not arbitrary/symbolic mappings. You can’t just make one codon code for different amino acid by declaring it so in some look-up dictionary – in that sense, DNA is more like a jig, or a template than a code. The mapping arises directly from the physical chemistry.” This isn’t actually true. In reality, there are some organisms for the biochemistry of which some codon that “means” ‘X’ in most other oganisms “means” ‘Y’.
That's interesting - do you have a cite? Presumably that means that in those organisms, there is a different tRNA molecule coded in the DNA. Which sort of supports the point that I made recently in some other thread that there will be selective pressure for the set of available tRNA molecules to have no duplicates at the amino acid end - the mapping has to be one amino acid to one or more codons. But which subset, of the possible set of 1280 tRNA molecules goes into that set, doesn't actually matter, as long as there only one of each for each amino acid. So, thinking further about it, the statement of mine you quote about it is indeed incorrect. It's not so much that the mapping arises directly from the chemistry, but that the set tRNA molecules that form that chemistry are themselves are an optimised subset from a larger possible set, of which several optimised subsets are possible. However, given such an optimised subset, the mapping is executed via a jig system.Elizabeth Liddle
July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
"But my point, I guess, is that these are not arbitrary/symbolic mappings. You can’t just make one codon code for different amino acid by declaring it so in some look-up dictionary – in that sense, DNA is more like a jig, or a template than a code. The mapping arises directly from the physical chemistry." This isn't actually true. In reality, there are some organisms for the biochemistry of which some codon that "means" 'X' in most other oganisms "means" 'Y'.Ilion
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 9

Leave a Reply