Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Human Evil, Music, Logic, and Himalayan Dung Heaps

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
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. Elizabeth Liddle
According to what definition of information?Mung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
The mapping of nucleic triplets to amino acids is an observable reality. Both modern biology and evolutionary theory are themselves based upon the reality that these mappings between discrete objects exist. Upright BiPed
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. Elizabeth Liddle
Mung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
(I'm looking at this page's "HTML source") I see what's causing the problem: Mrs Liddle seems to have typed "<i />" when she meant to type "<i>" This apparenly codes for an "open global italics" that seems to have no equivalent "turn it off, already!"Ilion
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
I don’t think that “an abstraction of a discrete object” “embed[ded] into a medium by the implementation of a chemical code” is a good description of what DNA does. - Elizabeth Liddle
You are welcome to make your case, but I think Marshal Nirenberg would be out of luck if the facts were otherwise. Upright BiPed
Mung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
Can the italics be ended? I put a great mass of "</i>" within that question, hoping that the problem is due to too many "<i>" upstream.Ilion
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
"can the italics be ended?" What do you have against italics? I have a lot of italic friends and they're really nice people.CannuckianYankee
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
Well, 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. Elizabeth Liddle
Mung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
can the italics be ended? Probably not. But they're better than when we had all bold in one thread.Mung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
junkdnaforlife
The irony of this two month long coding proposal dying in an italic graveyard of broken code by the proposed coder has not escaped me.
The irony that this is an Intelligent Design site is equally delicious.Elizabeth Liddle
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: I am deeply disappointed in your response, in which, I notice, you do not even bother to quote the text of the criteria I went to considerable trouble to propose to you. And of course my own perception of our conversation is very different to yours (it happens). Let me comment on your latest post to me below:
Hello Dr Liddle, I have taken some time to think about it, and quite frankly I am at the point where I just don’t know what else to say to you. This conversation began in late May and has run to the middle of July.
tbh, less than a couple of months isn't long to develop a proposal from first conception to detailed operationalised hypothesis, working on it part time, in a somewhat difficult discussion format, over several threads, when the two principals start with very different conceptual understandings of the problem.
It has had literally tens of thousands of words exchanged and has taken over five separate threads. Throughout the whole time I have felt like I was talking to someone who always had something slightly else in mind, almost condescendingly so at times, as if they thought they already knew the material and were just politely pacing their time.
Well, obviously that is your perception, and for my part in it I apologise. But as we are speaking frankly, I have to say that I have found much of your contributions to have a flavour of condescension as well. In fact, if you compare our exchanges, I think you will find far more personal criticism and expressions of skepticism about my motives and commitment in your posts than you will find about you in mine. I have consistently posted in good faith, and yet you have consistently questioned my good faith. In contrast, I have never, until the last day or so, questioned yours. I am, I confess, now starting to have my doubts. 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. When I find myself in a conversation that has become mired in mutual misunderstandings, I try to go the extra mile and find out why I might have misunderstood, or been misunderstood. I am very aware that when communication breaks down, the fault may at least partly be mine, and that at least some of the "fault" is due to circumstance - two people with very different habits of thought, patterns of language use, cultural hinterland, unquestioned premises.
This of course was interspersed with runs of “Great!”, and “Perfect!”, and “I like it”. I do not know the degree to which that accurately describes the events, but given the breadth of your misconceptions made obvious by the exchange, I would not say that it is not completely without merit.
I note your assumption that the misconceptions are all mine, which is a bit rich for someone who just accused me of being condescending! There have been times indeed, UPD, when I thought we were "nearly there" and that if we could just operationalise terms like "protocols" to our mutual satisfaction, then we'd be away. Unfortunately, as often happens in these conditions, once we started to unpack the remaining pieces of baggage, more evidence of differences in our understanding emerged. As I've said a few times, I have the hunch that if we could get to the stage of being absolutely clear what the other meant, we probably wouldn't need to go any further - the answer would be obvious. But we haven't succeeded in reaching that stage.
In any case, I have come to the end of my contributions in trying to describe the phenomena of information. Information is the dynamic outcome of a system that is unlike any other phenomenon in the cosmos. I have told you of the discrete entities/objects that are required for information to exist, and described their dynamic relation to one another. To the best of my knowledge, these descriptions hold true for the cell, the earthworm, the elephant, or the astronaut. Contrary to your claims of circularity, I never said that a mind was necessary to bring information into existence; I said a mechanism was required, and was willing to help establish the grounds to falsify the mechanism I believed to be responsible by a simulation of your mechanism accomplishing the same task. I have now already said everything at least a half dozen times so that you might break from your preconceptions, and at this point I am only repeating the repetitions.
What you have been doing, Upright BiPed, is indeed repeating your repetitions. Which no doubt has been frustrating for you, but even more frustating for me, because you have largely ignored my very pertinent queries! From my point of view there was a big unpacked bundle (often called "protocol") in your replies, but every time I tried to get you to unpack it, all I got was repackaging! I think I now see why - your post on the other thread about the UUU mapping to phenylalanine was the clue.
Other than our initial walk through the observations of information, the bulk of what I can say was said in post #50 and my clarifications at #85. Your preference to call the “break in the causal chain” a “dissociated link” would have been fine by me, as evidenced by my asking to use my phrase in the first place. The Popper in me says that the descriptors are far less important that the understanding anyway.
And the scientist in me says that the description is absolutely critical, which is precisely why I was trying to extract it from you. Upright BiPed, you no doubt know a lot about information but you do not know how to operationalise a hypothesis. Neither "break in the causal chain" nor "dissociated link" are operationalized. Neither give clear criteria by which an objective observer can determine whether the condition has been met. That is why the work was not finished. That was why I offered an operationalisation above. Which you have completely ignored.
If I thought factual integrity mattered, I would once again ask you to recant your comment that “IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes”. Clearly that claim is demonstrably false, as indicated by the fact that you are attempting to design a simulation to refute the claim. Sideshow dismissals about meaning CSI or other measure are meaningless. If information doesn’t exist itself, then its subcategories don’t either, surely you understand that much by now.
No, the claim is not "demonstrably false". In fact it's not demonstrable at all until we have an agreed operational definition of information! Unfortunately we don't seem to have got even to the stage where you understand why this is an absolutely fundamental requirement before any claim about information can be tested. However, when I made the claim, I meant, by "the signature of intentional design": CSI. Or, as Dembsi puts it: Specification: the pattern that signifies intelligence. http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf My claim is that it does not - that it is also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes. That is what I said I would demonstrate. However, it seemed that you had something different in mind, which I have tried to accommodate. But, unlike Dembski, who at least provides an equation (though the variables are somewhat short of operationalised IMO), you have provided only conceptual definitions, and it is precisely those concepts that I have taken such pains to try to operationalise. In the face, of a great deal of the kind of condescension you display below!
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.
Right. Well, I will offer, as "something productive", a refined version of the operationalised hypothesis I offered above, and which, unfortunately, you ignored. Here we go: 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 have thought very carefully about that last condition. I would like to know whether it satisfies your criteria for information.Elizabeth Liddle
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
can the italics be ended?Ilion
July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
The irony of this two month long coding proposal dying in an italic graveyard of broken code by the proposed coder has not escaped me.junkdnaforlife
July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
Hello Dr Liddle, I have taken some time to think about it, and quite frankly I am at the point where I just don’t know what else to say to you. This conversation began in late May and has run to the middle of July. It has had literally tens of thousands of words exchanged and has taken over five separate threads. Throughout the whole time I have felt like I was talking to someone who always had something slightly else in mind, almost condescendingly so at times, as if they thought they already knew the material and were just politely pacing their time. This of course was interspersed with runs of “Great!”, and “Perfect!”, and “I like it”. I do not know the degree to which that accurately describes the events, but given the breadth of your misconceptions made obvious by the exchange, I would not say that it is not completely without merit. In any case, I have come to the end of my contributions in trying to describe the phenomena of information. Information is the dynamic outcome of a system that is unlike any other phenomenon in the cosmos. I have told you of the discrete entities/objects that are required for information to exist, and described their dynamic relation to one another. To the best of my knowledge, these descriptions hold true for the cell, the earthworm, the elephant, or the astronaut. Contrary to your claims of circularity, I never said that a mind was necessary to bring information into existence; I said a mechanism was required, and was willing to help establish the grounds to falsify the mechanism I believed to be responsible by a simulation of your mechanism accomplishing the same task. I have now already said everything at least a half dozen times so that you might break from your preconceptions, and at this point I am only repeating the repetitions. Other than our initial walk through the observations of information, the bulk of what I can say was said in post #50 and my clarifications at #85. Your preference to call the “break in the causal chain” a “dissociated link” would have been fine by me, as evidenced by my asking to use my phrase in the first place. The Popper in me says that the descriptors are far less important that the understanding anyway. If I thought factual integrity mattered, I would once again ask you to recant your comment that “IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes”. Clearly that claim is demonstrably false, as indicated by the fact that you are attempting to design a simulation to refute the claim. Sideshow dismissals about meaning CSI or other measure are meaningless. If information doesn’t exist itself, then its subcategories don’t either, surely you understand that much by now. 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.Upright BiPed
July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
Hiya Lizzie! I can see you've had some rather unpleasant exchanges on another thread today, which is a shame. I understand why people are getting frustrated but I think it would be better for them to take some time out to calm down rather than repeatedly expressing their frustrations. Attack the position, not the person. I feel like I need to keep reminding you that that is my approach here. I greatly admire your patience and restraint, Lizzie! Okay, pour yourself another G + T, I'll get myself a wee stubby bottle of beer! We keep returning to the same fundamental disagreement: the one where, first of all, I’m just trying to establish whether the cell made itself or was made, while you’re not interested in that: you’d much rather nail down the Designer first. So far, I can only conclude that this is because you want to rule out the existence of a Designer that might be the Creator. Therefore the cell must have made itself, no matter how strong the evidence for Design is. At the very beginning of any design detection, we have no candidate designers. At that very early point, we immediately eliminate naturalistic causes and “infer Designers Unknown”. We do this all the time: especially for things like Stonehenge, the Sphinx and the Easter Island statues where the designers really are unknown, even to archaeologists. If we find a fresh corpse with severed limbs and missing bits, we quickly eliminate naturalistic causes and “infer Designers Unknown”. The very next step would be to assume a human killer. But this might be wrong as it could just be an animal attack. It is even possible that a demon appeared out of thin air and did the grisly deed before vanishing again: at the very outset, we can’t rule this out. Notice though that initial doubts about whether the cause of death was human, animal or demon does not in any way prevent us from eliminating naturalistic causes. We are certain that someone or something did this on purpose: ‘Designers Unknown’. Agreed? That just leaves self-replication as the last remaining reason to doubt design: so even though the cell is perhaps the most mind-bogglingly functional, sophisticated and complex things in existence you appeal to its ability to self-replicate as a reason to believe that it made itself. But, 1. No-one has any idea where the cell came from. 2. No-one has any idea where the first self-replicating molecule came from. 3. Every single experiment we’ve ever performed to try and re-create the first self-replicating molecule by purely naturalistic means has failed. Given these three indisputable facts, which reflect the impenetrable barriers that lie between naturalistic causes and the first self-replicating molecule (let alone, the cell), don’t you think it’s possible, Lizzie, that the cell didn’t make itself after all? There is certainly no scientific basis to believe otherwise. Which leaves us with that recurring need to reject the existence of any Designer which might be the Creator. If I showed you a 'smart' phone that had the ability to self-replicate, you wouldn't be much, much less likely to conclude that the 'smart' phone made itself, than if it lacked that ability. And yet, the cell is far more sophisticated, functional and complex than any 'smart' phone. The ability to self-replicate does not make the overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design disappear. It merely enhances it. Finally, if “All evolution is limited to ‘sub-specific variety’!” then that just means nothing has ever really evolved in the first place. After all, the whole point of sub-specific variety is that there are well established limits as to what we can achieve with it, artificially. Those limits are even more restrictive when it’s just nature doing the selecting. That’s why Chihuahuas and Great Danes didn’t appear until humans literally designed them. Sub-specific variety – along with its clear limits – is all that we see in extant species, especially in all the living fossils. And extinct species obviously didn’t leave any offspring that surpassed these limits: that’s what made them extinct in the first place! Furthermore, beyond sub-specific variation, all we ever see is discontinuity. If there was one word to describe the entire fossil record, it could be “discontinuous”. And biological classification would only be possible if there was discontinuity between species. So I don’t see how we can square these indisputable, observable facts with your claim that “micro-evolution can become “macro” without any discontinuity”.Chris Doyle
July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Mung: re this:
I think it might be safe to say that if a communications system is present that might be a good indicator of information.
I would agree. Which was exactly why I thought that simply being able to show that self-replicators (who necessarily transfer information from themselves to their offspring) could emerge from non-self replicators with no inputs other than a physics-chemistry and random movements, I'd be there. I'm not sure I can even do that, mind, but I'd like to try. But if I'm going to, I'd like to go for the Big One. Hence my attempt to get UPD to sign off on my latest set of criteria.Elizabeth Liddle
July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Mung, it may well have been of my own making. I certainly came with preconceived ideas about what would be regarded as a definition information at UD (CSI and friends, basically) - namely a pattern indicative of design (a watch on a heath? SETI signals?) without any further information as to what or who had produced it. However, I have made great efforts to understand what UPD is getting at, and I await his comments on my suggested criteria with eager anticipation. I think I have incorporated everything he requires, apart, of course, for his requirement of a "break in the causal chain". I've done the next best thing, I think though.Elizabeth Liddle
July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
However, what has emerged is that what you had in mind was not so much an INFORMATION-BEARING PATTERN, transmitted from generation to generation...
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 one huge hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Warren_Nirenberg And then look at your own posts for tRNA or ribosome. There is within the cell a system. That system is incredibly similar to the one sketched by Shannon in his famous paper. Do you understand the distinction between an "information-bearing pattern" (your own words) and INFORMATION itself? I think it might be safe to say that if a communications system is present that might be a good indicator of information.Mung
July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: thinking further on my bike (as I do!) I think I have perhaps put my finger on where things have come adrift. I had envisaged that what we both had in mind when defining information was that we would have a set of criteria by which we could look at a pattern, transmitted from parent to offspring, and say whether it contained information, of the type alleged by IDists to be highly unlikely to result without input from an Intelligent Designer), which I envisaged would, at the minimum, have to embody information that promoted the effective transmission of the pattern. This would rule out my Duplo Chemistry, but would include, for example, a pattern that was better able than other possible patterns to be transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. However, what has emerged is that what you had in mind was not so much an INFORMATION-BEARING PATTERN, transmitted from generation to generation, and which bore the hallmarks of Design (to be determined), but rather, but a kind INFORMATION TRANSFER PROTOCOL that bore the hallmark of a designer. That's fair enough I think. So what I need to get from you (or confirm that I already have), some minimal description of such a protocol - what criteria must be satisfied. And I certainly do not accept "a break in the causal chain" as a criteria! However, what I am willing to accept, is the following criteria for the output of my simulation, which should consist of self-replicating "virtual organisms": 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 was pretty well set to try to fulfill 1 and 2. I have now added 3. If my simulation, starting only with non-self-replicating entities and a physics-and-chemistry plus random kinetics, resulted in "virtual organisms" displaying the above characteristics, would you consider my claim fulfilled?Elizabeth Liddle
July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: Your post below is obviously disappointing (as clearly my response to you was disappointing), but let me address it anyway:
Dr Liddle, Overall, I find your last response to be just short of a free-wheeling swing-fest; a politely-worded tirade against almost the entirety of the conversation that went before it. It seems as though you asked for an operational definition, then got one, then later found out what kind of dynamic structure would be required for such a phenomenon to exist, and have since gone on a rant to eviscerate yourself from the position you are in. It seems that either I have moved the goalpost, or you were thinking of a different thing, or I don’t give satisfactory definitions, or you were talking about somebody else’s something else, or suddenly the observations are circular, or whatever else is within a hand’s reach.
No, obviously I don't think this is a fair summary at all. Firstly, yes indeed, I said that in order fulfil my claim to your satisfaction I would need an operational definition from you of information. Now, clearly, if my original claim referenced, as it did, a different conceptual definition than yours, that is a potential problem. I was thinking of a CSI- type definition, as I have now made clear. However, I'm quite prepared to extend my claim to your own conceptual definition, which, in many ways, I prefer. But we need to operationalise it. And the two key properties an operationalised hypothesis must have is that it must render it possible for independent investigators to measure the key variables and get the same answer (e.g. input and output values) and it must be unambiguous. So any potentially ambiguous words must be clearly unpacked, so that we are all clear what they are intended to mean in the context of the investigation. But then you did, indeed "move the goal posts". We were trying to define information in such a way we could both examine the output of my simulation, and determine whether that output consisted of information. But then, instead of defining information in terms of what the output would look like, you started to try to define it in terms of what the process between input and output must look like! Moreover, you insisted that that process must involve a "break in the causal chain"! Well, obviously I can't do that, because my claim is that no such break is required in order to produce information! Do you really not see the circularity here? Nonetheless, I went to great efforts to derive an operational hypothesis that might satisfy your criteria. I repost it here:
That, starting from a population of non-self-replicators, and using only a set of rules governing their interaction and stochastic processes governing their movement, a set of self-replicators can emerge that incorporate patterned sequences (S) that directly initiate processes that result in products (P) that increases the probability that the S itself, and the whole of which it is a part, will be replicated with a fidelity of x%, and that moreover, this process will involve catalysis by intermediate products that form neither part of P nor part of S.
The part beginning "and moreover..." is my attempt to include your condition that some kind of inert intermediary product is involved in the transfer of information embodied in the patterned sequence to the functional product - the dynamic protocol, if you will, that connects the two. If you think this is inadequate, please explain precisely why.
This strikes me as odd, given the fact that there is one wholly-unmentioned possibility which seems to be immediately confirmed by the text of your own comments. It’s the possibility where you fully understood the observations as they were being made, and indeed, you yourself provided much of the operational definition which rose from those observations, but have since discovered the intractable problem within your position, and are now openly reacting to the simple fact that the problem is virtually impossible to solve by the means you’ve prescribed to it.
Well, I didn't mention it because it isn't actually true. I've been struggling to get from you a clear conceptual definition of information that we could operationalise. We seemed to be nearly there, but then you seemed to me to go off on a tangent about protocols. Can I remind you that the operational definition I was seeking was for INFORMATION (excuse caps but we seem to be stuck on italics in this thread), so that I could demonstrate my claim that it could be created by Chance and Necessity alone (and we have I think satisfactorily agreed on operational definitions of those). I was not, obviously, seeking an operational requirement regarding the PROCESSES by which that information must be generated in my simulation. It was precisely the claim that those processes NEED NOT include anything other than Chance and Necessity that I made!
In light of this, I would have every right to simply walk away from this conversation. I would have every justification to write it off as just another highly-trained but self-deluded ideologue who (by direct fault of their very own) truly had no fundamental idea what they were talking about when it comes to the case for design.
Well, no. If you want to walk away, fine, but do not do so under the impression that it is I who have done the evading here. I made a fairly straightforward claim, which you rightly challenged. I accepted your challenge, with the provise that we agree an operational definition of "information" so that we can independently verify whether I meet your challenge. You have sidestepped this requirement, substituting in place of a definition of information, a requirement that the method by which that information is created must include a "break in the causal chain", the very thing that I claimed was unnecessary to create information! Clearly you do not see it this way. Therefore, the right thing to do is to clarify what you do mean, rather than simply "walk away". But of course it is your choice.
I think our meeting demonstrates the dynamic rather well. On the one hand we have a specialist whose focus is perpetually misdirected by their faulty view of the issues, and on the other hand we have a generalist who has spent an enormous amount of time studying the physical properties of information. One spits off to the other “I can make information rise up” and the ensuing result is certain.
Well, obviously I dispute the characterisation of myself as "a specialist whose focus is perpetually misdirected by their faulty view of the issues" which seems to me to be begging the question ( whether my view of the issues is faulty). Nor, in fact, would I describe myself as a "specialist" really. But, whatever. But I'm delighted to hear that you have "spent an enormous amount of time studying the physical properties of information". My claim is that Chance and Necessity alone can create information. Please, therefore, give me a straightforward operationalised definition of information such that an independent observer can tell us both whether the output from a simulation in which the only inputs are Chance and Necessity satisfies it.
In any case, I will decide this evening if I want to try and detangle your last post.
Hope to see you later. LizzieElizabeth Liddle
July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle, Overall, I find your last response to be just short of a free-wheeling swing-fest; a politely-worded tirade against almost the entirety of the conversation that went before it. It seems as though you asked for an operational definition, then got one, then later found out what kind of dynamic structure would be required for such a phenomenon to exist, and have since gone on a rant to eviscerate yourself from the position you are in. It seems that either I have moved the goalpost, or you were thinking of a different thing, or I don’t give satisfactory definitions, or you were talking about somebody else’s something else, or suddenly the observations are circular, or whatever else is within a hand’s reach. This strikes me as odd, given the fact that there is one wholly-unmentioned possibility which seems to be immediately confirmed by the text of your own comments. It’s the possibility where you fully understood the observations as they were being made, and indeed, you yourself provided much of the operational definition which rose from those observations, but have since discovered the intractable problem within your position, and are now openly reacting to the simple fact that the problem is virtually impossible to solve by the means you’ve prescribed to it. In light of this, I would have every right to simply walk away from this conversation. I would have every justification to write it off as just another highly-trained but self-deluded ideologue who (by direct fault of their very own) truly had no fundamental idea what they were talking about when it comes to the case for design. I think our meeting demonstrates the dynamic rather well. On the one hand we have a specialist whose focus is perpetually misdirected by their faulty view of the issues, and on the other hand we have a generalist who has spent an enormous amount of time studying the physical properties of information. One spits off to the other “I can make information rise up” and the ensuing result is certain. In any case, I will decide this evening if I want to try and detangle your last post.Upright BiPed
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Apologies for my 'smart' phone duplicating entries too. Duplications just clutter up data, rather than create it!Chris Doyle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
Random errors just destroy order, Lizzie, that's why! Thanks for your reply, certainly worth waiting for. I continue to enjoy our discussions and am proud that you're a fellow Brit! I will respond more fully tomorrow (while I'm supposed to be working).Chris Doyle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Random errors destroy just order, Lizzie, that's why! Thanks for your reply, certainly worth waiting for. I continue to enjoy our discussions and am proud that you're a fellow Brit! I will respond more fully tomorrow (while I'm supposed to be working).Chris Doyle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Blimey I seem to have infested the thread with italics! Sorry! Don't know what's happened there!Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Chris:
Good Afternoon Lizzie, Remember when you said that there was no “prejudice against a Creator God” at play when people reject Intelligent Design theory? I think your last response to me shows numerous examples of such a prejudice. In other words, design detection is perfectly rational, intuitive and empirically sound, unless the Designer in question might be the Creator. While you concede that you no longer need to know the identity of the Designer, you still insist that we must postulate a specific kind of Designer. Why?
Because otherwise we can go no further - we don't know whether the designer was an alien from another world, or a demon, or a Creator god. It doesn't get us anywhere. Nor does it offer any differential predictions that we can use to test it against an alternative hypothesis, such as Darwinian evolution.
Your next step is to postulate “an omnipotent God who could do anything s/he felt like at any time”. Again, why? Such a step is extremely illogical: it doesn’t follow from your previous step. It is also unscientific: what does science even have to say about things that possess omnipotence? Such muddled thinking is a clear sign that you are approaching Intelligent Design theory with a prejudice against any Designer who might be the Creator.
Not at all! I'm simply saying that science can only work with a hypothesis that makes differential predictions! A creator God isn't going to make any differential predictions, is it?
You also claim that it is unlikely that the Designer “was able to transfer solutions from one lineage to another” and that the Designer “preferred retrofitting to “going back to the drawing board” where possible”. Again, these are prejudicial comments given that all we are trying to do is establish whether or not actual Design has taken place. It’s almost as if you’re saying: “Well, the Designer is not capable of transferring solutions from one lineage to another and prefers retrofitting. If I was the Designer, that’s not how I would do it. So there can’t possibly be a Designer: it must have all made itself!”
Well, that's why I said - we can infer certain things about the postulated Designer - we can rule out certain attributes. But that isn't going to get us very far, just squish the designer into a slightly smaller gap. If you want actually to compare a Designer hypothesis with an evolutionary hypothesis you need a differential prediction.
At one point, you even suggested that we have to know that the Designer(s) “lived around these parts” before entertaining the possibility that something didn’t make itself. Why would you insist on such an odd requirement if you are not bringing prejudicial baggage to the table (ie. there is no Creator around these parts so don’t even go there with the cell)?
No, Chris I'm not saying that - I'm saying that when you compare the issue of biology to archaeology you are ommiting a couple of absolutely crucial differences - that archaelogists make their inferences in the light of knowledge about possible designers, and that archaeological artefacts don't self-replicate. If we had no candidate designers, AND no self-replication - yes, one might infer Designers Unknown, which would be quite exciting (obvious artefacts on Mars, for instance). But if the thing was self-replicating, we'd have good alternative hypothesis.
No doubt your opponents bring their own prejudices to the debate, Lizzie: Biblical Literalists being an extreme (and rare) example. But most of us put science ahead of those prejudices. Most of us can take or leave evolution, for example. You’ve got theistic evolutionists on one end of the scale and then creationists on the other. Personally, I don’t see any scientific evidence whatsoever to support the belief that a single-celled common ancestor evolved into human beings. I don’t even accept common ancestry. Again, this is on purely scientific grounds. If the evidence led to evolutionist explanations then I’d simply become a theistic evolutionist. Even front-loaded deism would be relatively easy to accommodate (including the implications for abiogenesis).
Excellent :) That's probably why I enjoy talking to you :) But I do think you've overlooked a lot important evidence. Still, I think theism is completely compatible with evolutionary theory. I certainly didn't become an atheist because of Darwinian evolutionary theory!
But atheists have got no room for manoeuvre. They can’t take or leave a Designer that might be the Creator. The universe and everything in it MUST have made itself, through purely naturalistic processes or else their entire worldview collapses and it really is back to the drawing board. I put it to you, Lizzie, that you are placing your worldview, and therefore prejudices against a Designer who might be the Creator, ahead of what are otherwise plainly obvious and entirely straightforward means of Design detection in the cell.
No, I'm not Chris, seriously. I'm not an atheist because I'm a Darwinist, nor am I a Darwinist because I'm an atheist. The two are entirely unconnected. And your point is only valid for those atheists who have an emotional vested interest in a firm belief that there is no God. I know of very few of those. Actually, I know of none, though I am sure they exist.
You’ve already conceded that you’ve got absolutely no idea where the first self-replicator came from. As I’ve already pointed out: things that self-replicate are more difficult to explain than the same things that don’t self-replicate. It is impossible that non self-replicating artifacts such as Stonehenge or the Sphinx made themselves. Crazy appeals to science fiction aside, it is all the more impossible that a self-replicating version of these things made themselves! It is not their inability to self-replicate that leads you to the certain and immediate conviction of design. Throwing self-replication into the mix only strengthens that conviction. And the cell is vastly more functional, sophisticated and complicated than Stonehenge and the Sphinx even before it self-replicates…
No, I don't have "absolutely no idea where the first self-replicator came from". Obviously it's a long way from my field, but there are lots of interesting candidate hypotheses. I guess I should entertain the possiblity that a supernatural force placed the first self-replicators capable of Darwinian evolution on earth, but my priors would be low compared with some of the candidate theories.
However, you “consider the evidence overwhelming, as well as supported by elementary logic, that things that reproduce themselves with variance tend to end up evolving into ever-more-efficient self-reproducing things”. Surely, then, you can briefly summarise an important part of this ‘elementary logic’ as well as briefly identifying some of this ‘overwhelming’ evidence because most of us just don’t see it. Just remember, artificial selection is much more powerful than natural selection. As kairosfocus pointed out back in May: “[Natural] selection, contrary to popular opinion, is not a source of information, but patently a culler — a remover — of information. The variants that do not find niches do not survive to pass on genes. That which subtracts does not add. We have to look at that which supposedly adds, before we can see how subtraction may lead to survivors. By repeating the mantra “natural selection” one does not escape the need for engines of variation, and for specifically non-foresighted engines of variation, for darwinian type evolution.”
I think this is flawed. Removal of stuff can be as informative as addition of stuff. If I present you with five pairs of shoes, all different sizes, and you reject all but one of them, the pair that is left will tell me your shoe size. The selection process has created information. However, what I would certainly agree with is that rejecting shoes won't create shoes. As for artificial selection - yes, it may well be faster than natural selection, though not necessarily. It will have an upper bound placed by the rate of "shoe creation" - new alleles that extend the range in a given phenotypic direction. Same with natural selection. Natural selection may be slower (or, in some cases, faster), but again, it will have an upper bound in any one dimension on the rate of new allele creation (or even, rarely, new gene creation). Still, I don't think this is the thread for presenting to you the full argument for evolutionary theory from First True Cell to now! Maybe sometime though :) I'm very glad to hear that it wouldn't destroy your faith.
Artificial selection offers more than Natural Selection, but it is still limited to mere sub-specific variety: something that has been happening to all extant species for their entire known existence without any significant alteration whatsoever. Just offering evidence of sub-specific variety would therefore be completely underwhelming because any increased efficiency it generates is merely a product of a pre-existing gene pool.
All evolution is limited to "sub-specific variety"! That's a really important point - ask me if you don't understand what I mean! As for "pre-existing gene pool": I think it's a mistake (made by evolutionists as well as antis) to imagine that evolution proceeds mainly by brand new alleles. For a start most alleles have tiny phenotypic effects, and most selectable phenotypic traits are likely to be polygeneic, and those poly-genes are likely to include interactions. So it's better, IMO, to think of the gene pool as a big reservoir into which new, near-neutral alleles drip quite slowly, and drip out quite slowly, with the provise that newer drips have a greater probability of dropping out than older drips. In other words, the longer an allele hangs around, the longer it is likely to hang around! So we have a constantly feed of potentially useful alleles into the gene pool. And what happens, as a population continuously adapts to its environment, is that constituents of the "best allele cocktail" at any given time become more prevalent, and non-constuents become rarer, and may even drop out completely. That's the sense in which micro-evolution can become "macro" without any discontinuity - there isn't a jump between "micro-evolution using pre-existing alleles" and "macro-evolution using new alleles" - all evolution uses "pre-existing alleles" (with rare exceptions - the nylon-eating bug being possibly one) but the pool of pre-existing alleles is being constantly fed, and purged, so that there is always some phenotypic dimension along which a population can move in order to better adapt. As for speciation - that's different, because it involves a population splitting. Nonetheless, it's just a special case in which two subpopulations from an ancestral population adapt (by "microevolution"!) independently to different environments, and eventually cease to interbreed. Hope that paints a more realistic picture than the one perhaps you have been entertaining (and the one which, tbh, is often painted by "my" side!)Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
oops that's weird - I checked the italic tags. Don't know what happened. Sorry.Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed:
Dr Liddle,
Well, we certainly agree that in order to demonstrate my claim I need an operational definition of information, and that, clearly will have requirements.
Yes, and as the result of a long conversation about various observations, there seemed to be a fair amount of agreement. You yourself provided two thirds of the following working definition. 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. At which point the conversation generally turned more to the topic of what specific observations we might like to see in order to verify the claim. Which I think is where we are now; I have given you my thoughts and you have responded to them.
Yes, I agree that that is where we are.
We are attempting to simulate the rise of information in the genome, and the central question at this point is “how will we know it’s there?” To me, it seems like the shortest path to that answer would be the least subject to error, and in fact, it’s already been proven to be entirely reliable. The question to be answered is “how did we find it in the genome in the first place?”
Well, no, that isn’t the question to be answered! The question to be answered is: have I succeeded in creating information from a starting population of non-self-replicators? And to do that, we need an operational definition of information, so that we can both, independently , use that criterion to decide whether or not I have succeeded.
This has been the whole point of making these observations, exactly for the purpose of finding it again in your simulation. Researchers witnessed a mapping (a relation) between two discrete things: the patterns within nucleic sequences and specific actions taken in the assembly of amino acids into proteins. This process passed through the transcription of an initial sequence into a second medium, and then that second medium was transported elsewhere to be decoded by the use of protocols, and onward to the end result. It was also observed that there are no bonds associated within the sequence itself which would determine the order of nucleotides. It was observed that the constituents of the sequence did not directly interact with the resulting protein chain; the sequence in the parent chain is a discrete object. We manipulated the system at the input, and then observed the end result, thereby decoding the protocols. Those protocols were found to be the physical bridge across the two causal chains – were the information is inserted and the output is constrained by it – and they themselves are a product of that constraint. The information paradigm, even in its infancy, has since become the centerpiece of biological understanding. The method to observe the presence of information is therefore already known to us. Your simulation won’t be biological, but the dynamics of information must still be present.
Well, we still have a problem. You are defining the required output from my simulation in terms of what procedures are used to produce that output. In other words, you are not providing an operational definition of my output (information), but of the process from which that output must emerge. This is circular. I said that natural processes could produce information, and asked you to define information. Now you are saying that information is stuff that is output from a specific observed process! So are not asking me to demonstrate my original claim, but quite another one – that something like the ribosome can emerge by from a starting population of non-self replicators. I think it’s probably true, but it’s not what I claimed. It is a frequent claim made by IDists that information (more often “complex specified information”) can be detected in patterns (i.e. you can look at a pattern, and say whether it contains complex specified information) and that such patterns cannot be produced by Chance and/or Necessity alone – that they require a Designer. I dispute this claim. This is why I wanted a clear definition of information, which was why I went off on what you considered a tangent, trying to get a good operational definition of CSI that we could apply to the output of my simulation). However, you said the CSI definition was irrelevant to our conversation, and that we were in the process of developing our own definition. That’s fine, in principle, although, depending on what it is, it may not correspond to the kind of thing I had in mind when I made my claim, which was something like CSI (seeing as I’ve read quite a lot of ID literature :)) So we got to: 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. But it’s still a bit conceptual. We still need to unpack some of those words, especially “representation” and “entirely dissociated”. The trouble is that rather than unpacking these words so that they can used as objective criterion for my end product, you have tried to specify the process I must use to produce that end product, and thus moved the goal posts (almost literally – the goal anyway) from producing information to producing something like a biological DNA-to-protein by way of mRNA, tRNA and ribosome in simulation. That is simply not what I claimed to be able to do! It would be awesome, but I’m simply not competent to do that! So, where to go from here? Let me look at what you say below:
However, if it turns out that your requirements (your operational definition) goes well beyond the conceptual definition I had in mind, I may have to retract.
Well as far as the operational definition goes, we seem to have some general agreement. It doesn’t seem that understanding the observations (those that shaped the definition) presents any difficulty for you, as well it shouldn’t. The problem lies in simulating the dynamic structure required for it to exist and come into being – without having it there, and only by chance and necessity from your initial conditions.
Well, we still have to do some operationalising. What we don’t have to do (or you don’t have to do) is figure out the simulation. That’s my job. Ideally, what should be possible is that you look at my inputs (non-self-replicators only, with some Laws and some Chance), and examine my outputs, and tell me whether they contain of information. That criterion must not depend on how I did it, or we have a quite different claim for me to defend from the one I made.
As far as what conceptions you had about information, and the claims you make about it, I can only recount what you’ve said: In an ongoing conversation on June 2nd, you made a comment about gene duplication: 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. I took mild exception to that remark, for no other reason than it rest on a flawed understanding of what information is.
Well, I don’t think it was “flawed” though it may have been information by a different definition from the one you think I could have been using. I was using something like CSI.
Materialist come here all the time to beat the evolution drum, as if they are faithfully defending their theory against ID. They seem to think that ID somehow denies change-over-time, or violates observed facts. They seem to think that by constantly recounting the already-observed regularities in biology, this will be detrimental to the case for design. It isn’t, because it’s conceptually misdirected by misrepresentations. And as always, it’s the fact that the system even exist at all that is most taken for granted. In other words, the conclusion against design is simply assumed to be true. So I replied: ”It demonstrably can, IMO, on any definition of information I am aware of.” 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 exist, is to ignore the 600lbs assumption in the room. To which you replied: Well, tell me what definition of information you are using, and I’ll see if I can demonstrate that it can That is how we arrived where we are. - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Right – so you agreed that once you have a self-replicator, further information can be generated OK? But that the crucial part is how a self-replicator can emerge from non-self-replicators? Right. And while that was not my original claim, that is what I’m interested in demonstrating. My view was that if I succeeded in that, I would, by definition, have provided evidence that information–generators (i.e. self-replicators) could emerge from a population of non-selfreplicators. But you probably rightly rejected a couple of fairly simple self-replicator that I originally proposed (my “Duplo Chemistry” for instance) because my self-replicating sequences did not do anything apart from self-replicate. The sequence didn’t matter except that it was the sequence that was replicated. So I promised to include another layer of information – that the sequence itself would contribute to the efficiency with which the thing self-replicated. In other words that that the sequence would embody functional information - information that contributed to the maintenance and persistence, over time, of its own pattern. I submit that a system that did that would fulfil the conceptual definition of information we agreed : 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. Because I’d have a pattern (a sequence) that caused the formation of something else (a molecule for instance) that then increased the probability that the whole (including the original pattern) would be self-replicated. In other words, my sequence would represent the molecule, from which it would differ, but the two would be associated because the production of the latter would enhance the probability that the former would be replicated. So my suggested operational definition of information for the purpose of my simulation is: A pattern that directly initiates a process that results in a product that increases the probability that the pattern itself, and the whole of which it is a part, will be replicated with a fidelity of x% where x is an agreed threshold (90%?) Alternatively we could express the fidelity threshold as something like the probability that something resembling the replicated individual would have emerged spontaneously from the starting conditions. That would be more elegant, but trickier to define. I’d have to think about that.
As for recanting, I have no desire whatsoever for you to recant. Well, that is not entirely true, I very much think you should recant your comment that ”IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider ”the signature of intentional design” is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes”. ” That accusation is demonstrably without merit at this point, even if you thought it had merit when you made it. You yourself have demonstrated why this is so. You’ve set yourself up to defend a position which quite literally flies in the face of the fact that you’re trying to design a simulation to refute what you say doesn’t exist. Quit frankly, I shouldn’t even have to ask you to recant, but you’ve made your position clear.
Well, I meant CSI. You thought I meant Meyer. I hadn’t read Meyer at that point.
As far as the simulation itself, I have no desire for you to quit.
Yes, except that I need to know a little more about what you would regard as the minimum for the “symbolic” requirement. This is not part Dembski’s definition, and, as I think I said, when I made the claim, I was thinking in those terms.
Firstly, I think we should be clear about this now. The requirement for a symbolic relationship between discrete objects is not my requirement. I have nothing to do with it. It’s an observation coming directly from the evidence itself. It’s how we discovered the genetic code in the first place. Modern biology is based upon it.
But, as we have seen, this lands us in difficulties, because we then need an operational definition of symbolic, and that has proved problematic (see above). We can’t just say: well, a ribosome operates with symbolic information, so let’s define symbolic information as the as the kind that emerges from something like a ribosome, or we are back in circles again. I did not claim to be able to simulate the emergence of a ribosome from non-self-replicators. What I said I’d demonstrate was that something that could produce information (functional, i.e. useful, meaningful, information) could emerge from non-self-replicators. And information that furthers the efficiency with which a self-replicator self-replicates is clearly useful to the self-replicator, and therefore functional.
Secondly, Dr. Dembski’s definition of information was never on your list of points. If you will recall, you spent a great deal of time repeating your need for my operational definition of information, not anyone else’s. I then gave it to you by going through the observations so that we might agree to them, which we did. It is those observations, and their entailments, which will allow us to verify your claim.
Well, as I said, I took it for granted when I made my claim. I assumed that we were talking information as defined in Dembski’s work, seeing as Dembski is at the forefront of the ID movement, not to mention the owner of this blog, and we were talking about ID claims. So I didn’t at that point expect any operational definition arising from your own concept to be radically different. But it turns out to be. That’s fine, to some extent my claim also applies to yours. But it was not my original claim (though you may have assumed it was).
The second structural item has to do with a necessity that the output of information transfer must be dynamic, based upon the input of that information. If the output is not dynamically driven by the representations being given at the input, then the input cannot be seen as informative to the output.
I’d like that unpacked with some ferinstances if possible
The receiver of the information must be able to access discrete protocols it in order for the information to have an effect. (example; GGC= glysine, CCA= proline) It’s part of the operational definition.
Who is the “receiver” in this scenario? And no, it is not (yet) part of the “operational definition” because we don’t yet have one, though I hope we are getting there.
Thirdly, to facilitate this dynamic property, there must be a necessary break in the causal chain. This break is exemplified within the cell by the simple fact that proteins are not created from nucleotides. In other words, if you plucked the ribosome from the cell’s protein synthesis machinery, and put yourself in its place, in one direction you would see sequences of nucleotides coming in for translation, and in the other direction you would see sequenced amino acids floating off into the distance to be folded into proteins. One of these marks the input of information (representations instantiated in matter) and the other is the output (a process being dynamically altered by the input). But these are two entirely separate causal chains (if I may use that word). Ah. A problem. No, I cannot incorporate a “necessary break in the causal chain”! To insist I do so is to make the criteria for my success the refutation of my claim! … I am essentially saying “a miracle occurs here” which is precisely what I am claiming to demonstrate need not occur!
Again, it is not at my insistence that the entailment be simulated, it’s a requirement coming from the evidence itself – but there is no miracle there. The tRNA – a physical object subject to physical law – is the protocol that (by its physical configuration) allows the information to be transferred into the output, and thereby constraining it. If there is an unbroken line between the information and its final effect, then no discrete representation could exist, and no protocol either. Neither would even be necessary. This would violate your own operational definition, as well as the dynamic structure that the definition entails. Your simulation would be a failure by virtue of not demonstrating two of the observed and confirmed requirements of information; representations and their protocols. The transfer of information would be out the window as well. It would be a mere chemical reaction with a probability of 1, none of which has any supporting observations whatsoever in the phenomena you are attempting to simulate. To simulate the rise of information without being obligated to demonstrate the very nature of information is obviously unacceptable; it’s not a simulation of information. If you are not going to accept that obligation, then what is the justification for proceeding?
Oh boy. I think it’s time to go back to the drawing board. Look: obviously in order to demonstrate the rise of information, to your satisfaction, I need a clear definition of information, such that you can look at what my simulation has produced and say: yes, that is information, or, no that is not information. That’s what an operational definition is. It doesn’t terribly matter to me what that definition is, but if it is an operationalisation of a conceptual definition that I did not have in mind when I made the claim, obviously I need to make that clear. But right now, I’m not at all sure even what your conceptual definition is, so I certainly can’t attempt to operationalise it! But let me go through your paragraph above and see whether I can tease it out:
1. The tRNA – a physical object subject to physical law – is the protocol that (by its physical configuration) allows the information to be transferred into the output, and thereby constraining it.
OK, but remember I do not intend to simulate tRNA. I’m looking for an operational criterion here. But yes, let’s say that, at least in a modern living cell an intermediate object (tRNA) maps the information instantiated in the mRNA sequence (derived by direct template mapping from the DNA) to a given amino acid. So if mRNA is the input, and the amino acid the output, tRNA connects the two, physically (i.e. by physical law).
2. If there is an unbroken line between the information and its final effect, then no discrete representation could exist, and no protocol either.
I simply don’t understand this. Are you saying that the intermediate (the tRNA) is the break in the line? If so, then fine. But what is the principle here? There is no break in chemical cause-and-effect. Various tRNA molecules exist, and each one binds at one end to certain codons and at the other end to certain amino acids. It’s a chemical property of those molecules, and subject to just the same laws as govern the binding of RNA to DNA, and indeed of nucleotide to nucleotide. You might ask why those particularly tRNA molecules are present in cells, and not others, but again, that’s a circular question. It’s perfectly possible that on some other planet, life might have evolved with the same kind of DNA, but with a different set of tRNA molecules. So in one sense the set we have is arbitrary. But that doesn’t make it symbolic – it’s still just chemistry, with additional intermediate reaction. What makes this one a “break” in the chain?
3. Neither would even be necessary. This would violate your own operational definition, as well as the dynamic structure that the definition entails.
But we don’t yet have an operational definition! And when we do, it will be agreed between us, it won’t be “mine”. This is exactly what I am trying to get from you – what are your criteria for determining whether a “break” in the “line” has occurred? What line are you talking about? There is no break in the chemical line in a cell – it’s all chemistry. tRNA molecules are created from DNA in just the same way as mRNA molecules are. They bind to the amino acids they do because of the DNA sequence that serves as their template. It’s all chemistry. There is no break in the chemistry.
4. Your simulation would be a failure by virtue of not demonstrating two of the observed and confirmed requirements of information; representations and their protocols.
And that’s exactly why we need to figure out what you mean by “representation” and “protocols”. Protocols is pretty clear – I’m interpreting as a set of events contingent on some pattern (probably a polymeric sequence), but “representation” is the difficulty. When does something causes something else in a physical/chemical causal chain, start to become “symbolic”? And if you are somehow claiming that tRNA isn’t part of a physical/chemical causal chain, then I’m not sure what you are claiming! And obviously I can’t incorporate non-physical/chemical causation in a demonstration that is a priori confined to physical/chemical causation!
5. The transfer of information would be out the window as well. It would be a mere chemical reaction with a probability of 1, none of which has any supporting observations whatsoever in the phenomena you are attempting to simulate.
No, it need not have a “probability of 1”. No chemical reaction has a “probability of 1”. Stochastic events (“Chance”) affect all physical/chemical interactions, whether at the quantum level or above. What you seem to be saying is that if a message is transferred with 100% fidelity (probability of transmission of each bit=1) then no information has been transferred! Now, obviously you don’t mean that, but, in that case, what do you mean?
Again, I genuinely hope that you do proceed, and I fully understand the conceptual problem you face by way of the evidence (welcome to a refutation of your comment above). But it would be useless to intend from the start to not demonstrate the very observations that must be demonstrated.
Indeed. But nor can I be expected to demonstrate something that is defined, a priori, as something that cannot be demonstrated! I said, a while back, Upright BiPed, that it was possible that if we really managed to establish an operational definition of information that would satisfy both of us, I probably wouldn’t have to do the demonstration. It would be obvious to both of us that one of us was wrong (and we would agree as to which of us it was!) I have a sense that this might be where we end up (though I hope not, because I do think that demonstrating that a self-replicator could emerge from non-self replicators would be pretty cool, especially if those self-replicators incorporated sequenced information that itself increased their probability of self-replication). But it seems to me we have hit a fundamental problem. Let’s see if it is resolved here, where you summarise very nicely your reasoning. I hope I can make it clear where I think your reasoning is fundamentally flawed:. I will number your points:
1. The first causal chain is the sequence of representations, which I say is the product of design, and you contend is the result of chance/necessity. It is made up of nucleic acids. 2. The second causal chain is the bonding within the resulting polypeptide. It is made up of amino acids. 3. The amino acids and the nucleic acids do not interact. They are connected at this dynamic break only by the protocol itself, which I say is the product of design, and you say is the result of chance/necessity. Regardless of who is correct, this dynamic break in the causal chain must be represented in the simulation
My response: 1. You seem to be equivocating with the word “chain” here. I am not clear whether your “causal chain” is the same as your DNA chain of nucleic acids. A chain of nucleic acids is not a “causal chain”. It’s just a polymer. However, I agree that it must have had a cause. I also agree that as yet we do not know how DNA formed spontaneously outside a non-self-replicator, or whether it did (it could have followed RNA-based self-replictors, or even protein-based self-replicators). But that’s OK, because as part of my demonstration I will have my polymers form spontaneously. So this is fine. Let’s call this the “input”. And its immediate output is mRNA. That then forms the input to the next stage. 2. Again, you seem to be equivocating with “chain”. But I agree that the output from the system is a sequence of amino acids that we call a polypeptide. Let’s call this the “output”. 3. You say that the input is connected only to the output by means of a “protocol”. And that this means that there is a break in the “causal chain” OK, and this is where I fundamentally disagree. Your point seems to be that the input (mRNA) and the output (polypeptide) “do not interact”. I assume you mean that they do not chemically interact. This true. But this is trivial. What we have here is a catalyst – a compound (or series of compounds) that facilitate a chemical reaction (the bonding of amino acid to amino acid without themselves taking part in the reaction. Yes, a ribosome is a very complex catalyst, but essentially that is what it is. And we do not normally consider that a catalysed reaction is necessarily “designed”. If I recall my inorganic chemistry correctly, rust itself catalyses the oxidation of iron, which is why it’s important not to let rust get a hold on your car, because once it gets started, it will accelerate. Indeed, you can even get a stainless steel knife to rust if you put it in contact with a rusty carbon steel one (as I have found to my cost). And we certainly do not claim that there is a “break in the causal chain”. Indeed, when I found my damaged stainless steel knife, I immediately realised that the cause of its rust was the catalytic effect of the rust on the carbon steel one.
My challenge to you is to rewrite this paragraph in such a way that it is clear to me that it is not circular. I am not saying that it is – there may be something important that I am missing. But to me, you seem to be saying that my simulation must involve a pairing of symbol with meaning (cf DNA sequence with amino acid) that does not arise from either Chance or Necessity, which seems to me to be the same as saying, “that is not causal”.
No, that is not what I am saying, at all. In fact, this probably goes to the “problem statement” that you were flirting with earlier in the conversation. What I am saying is that the cause of this very well-recorded fact is the input of design, and you say it can be created by chance and necessity. This is the very purpose of the simulation – to show that the claim of design is not necessary, and that chance and law alone can establish these relationships.
What “very well-recorded fact”? You haven’t clarified the circularity all! What I need (see above) is a definition of “symbol” that is independent of its cause. Because if you define a symbol by a certain chain of causation, and that chain of causation includes the very thing I am seeking to exclude, then obviously, my task is impossible! However, you now (see above) seem to have included in your category “symbol” any chemical catalyst – any compound that facilitates a chemical reaction without actually taking part in it (or at least remaining unchanged at the end of the reaction. That’s fine, but is that really what you mean?
The sequences of nucleotides in DNA, and the order of amino acids in proteins, are two discrete objects. They are separated by both space and direct interaction. They are bridged by transcription and translation machinery which includes a physical object which converts one sequence into the other while they remain separate. It responds to the representation at the input, and transfers that representation to a second sequence which is entirely disassociated from the first. This fulfills the operational definition you put forth. And it does so by coding for the objects within the system which make it all work. As I said before, this is NOT (of course) where your simulation must start. But it does have to end up here; because that’s the way we found it.
OK, let’s see if I can produce a phoenix from these ashes. Proposed operationalisation of my claim: That, starting from a population of non-self-replicators, and using only a set of rules governing their interaction and stochastic processes governing their movement, a set of self-replicators can emerge that incorporate patterned sequences (S) that directly initiate processes that result in products (P) that increases the probability that the S itself, and the whole of which it is a part, will be replicated with a fidelity of x%, and that moreover, this process will involve catalysis by intermediate products that form neither part of P nor part of S. Howzat? Not sure I can pull off that last part, but it would be sort of cool if I could.Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Thank you as well Dr Liddle, I look forward to your response.Upright BiPed
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
Thanks, Upright BiPed! Really gottagoto work now, but will try to respond this evening. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle,
Well, we certainly agree that in order to demonstrate my claim I need an operational definition of information, and that, clearly will have requirements.
Yes, and as the result of a long conversation about various observations, there seemed to be a fair amount of agreement. You yourself provided two thirds of the following working definition. 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. At which point the conversation generally turned more to the topic of what specific observations we might like to see in order to verify the claim. Which I think is where we are now; I have given you my thoughts and you have responded to them. We are attempting to simulate the rise of information in the genome, and the central question at this point is “how will we know it’s there?” To me, it seems like the shortest path to that answer would be the least subject to error, and in fact, it’s already been proven to be entirely reliable. The question to be answered is “how did we find it in the genome in the first place?” This has been the whole point of making these observations, exactly for the purpose of finding it again in your simulation. Researchers witnessed a mapping (a relation) between two discrete things: the patterns within nucleic sequences and specific actions taken in the assembly of amino acids into proteins. This process passed through the transcription of an initial sequence into a second medium, and then that second medium was transported elsewhere to be decoded by the use of protocols, and onward to the end result. It was also observed that there are no bonds associated within the sequence itself which would determine the order of nucleotides. It was observed that the constituents of the sequence did not directly interact with the resulting protein chain; the sequence in the parent chain is a discrete object. We manipulated the system at the input, and then observed the end result, thereby decoding the protocols. Those protocols were found to be the physical bridge across the two causal chains - were the information is inserted and the output is constrained by it - and they themselves are a product of that constraint. The information paradigm, even in its infancy, has since become the centerpiece of biological understanding. The method to observe the presence of information is therefore already known to us. Your simulation won’t be biological, but the dynamics of information must still be present.
However, if it turns out that your requirements (your operational definition) goes well beyond the conceptual definition I had in mind, I may have to retract.
Well as far as the operational definition goes, we seem to have some general agreement. It doesn’t seem that understanding the observations (those that shaped the definition) presents any difficulty for you, as well it shouldn’t. The problem lies in simulating the dynamic structure required for it to exist and come into being – without having it there, and only by chance and necessity from your initial conditions. As far as what conceptions you had about information, and the claims you make about it, I can only recount what you’ve said: In an ongoing conversation on June 2nd, you made a comment about gene duplication:
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.
I took mild exception to that remark, for no other reason than it rest on a flawed understanding of what information is. Materialist come here all the time to beat the evolution drum, as if they are faithfully defending their theory against ID. They seem to think that ID somehow denies change-over-time, or violates observed facts. They seem to think that by constantly recounting the already-observed regularities in biology, this will be detrimental to the case for design. It isn’t, because it’s conceptually misdirected by misrepresentations. And as always, it’s the fact that the system even exist at all that is most taken for granted. In other words, the conclusion against design is simply assumed to be true. So I replied:
”It demonstrably can, IMO, on any definition of information I am aware of.”
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 exist, is to ignore the 600lbs assumption in the room.
To which you replied:
Well, tell me what definition of information you are using, and I’ll see if I can demonstrate that it can
That is how we arrived where we are. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As for recanting, I have no desire whatsoever for you to recant. Well, that is not entirely true, I very much think you should recant your comment that ”IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes”. That accusation is demonstrably without merit at this point, even if you thought it had merit when you made it. You yourself have demonstrated why this is so. You’ve set yourself up to defend a position which quite literally flies in the face of the fact that you’re trying to design a simulation to refute what you say doesn’t exist. Quit frankly, I shouldn’t even have to ask you to recant, but you’ve made your position clear. As far as the simulation itself, I have no desire for you to quit.
Yes, except that I need to know a little more about what you would regard as the minimum for the “symbolic” requirement. This is not part Dembski’s definition, and, as I think I said, when I made the claim, I was thinking in those terms.
Firstly, I think we should be clear about this now. The requirement for a symbolic relationship between discrete objects is not my requirement. I have nothing to do with it. It’s an observation coming directly from the evidence itself. It’s how we discovered the genetic code in the first place. Modern biology is based upon it. Secondly, Dr. Dembski’s definition of information was never on your list of points. If you will recall, you spent a great deal of time repeating your need for my operational definition of information, not anyone else’s. I then gave it to you by going through the observations so that we might agree to them, which we did. It is those observations, and their entailments, which will allow us to verify your claim.
The second structural item has to do with a necessity that the output of information transfer must be dynamic, based upon the input of that information. If the output is not dynamically driven by the representations being given at the input, then the input cannot be seen as informative to the output.
I’d like that unpacked with some ferinstances if possible
The receiver of the information must be able to access discrete protocols it in order for the information to have an effect. (example; GGC= glysine, CCA= proline) It’s part of the operational definition.
Thirdly, to facilitate this dynamic property, there must be a necessary break in the causal chain. This break is exemplified within the cell by the simple fact that proteins are not created from nucleotides. In other words, if you plucked the ribosome from the cell’s protein synthesis machinery, and put yourself in its place, in one direction you would see sequences of nucleotides coming in for translation, and in the other direction you would see sequenced amino acids floating off into the distance to be folded into proteins. One of these marks the input of information (representations instantiated in matter) and the other is the output (a process being dynamically altered by the input). But these are two entirely separate causal chains (if I may use that word).
Ah. A problem. No, I cannot incorporate a “necessary break in the causal chain”! To insist I do so is to make the criteria for my success the refutation of my claim! … I am essentially saying “a miracle occurs here” which is precisely what I am claiming to demonstrate need not occur!
Again, it is not at my insistence that the entailment be simulated, it’s a requirement coming from the evidence itself – but there is no miracle there. The tRNA – a physical object subject to physical law – is the protocol that (by its physical configuration) allows the information to be transferred into the output, and thereby constraining it. If there is an unbroken line between the information and its final effect, then no discrete representation could exist, and no protocol either. Neither would even be necessary. This would violate your own operational definition, as well as the dynamic structure that the definition entails. Your simulation would be a failure by virtue of not demonstrating two of the observed and confirmed requirements of information; representations and their protocols. The transfer of information would be out the window as well. It would be a mere chemical reaction with a probability of 1, none of which has any supporting observations whatsoever in the phenomena you are attempting to simulate. To simulate the rise of information without being obligated to demonstrate the very nature of information is obviously unacceptable; it’s not a simulation of information. If you are not going to accept that obligation, then what is the justification for proceeding? Again, I genuinely hope that you do proceed, and I fully understand the conceptual problem you face by way of the evidence (welcome to a refutation of your comment above). But it would be useless to intend from the start to not demonstrate the very observations that must be demonstrated.
The first causal chain is the sequence of representations, which I say is the product of design, and you contend is the result of chance/necessity. It is made up of nucleic acids. The second causal chain is the bonding within the resulting polypeptide. It is made up of amino acids. The amino acids and the nucleic acids do not interact. They are connected at this dynamic break only by the protocol itself, which I say is the product of design, and you say is the result of chance/necessity. Regardless of who is correct, this dynamic break in the causal chain must be represented in the simulation.
My challenge to you is to rewrite this paragraph in such a way that it is clear to me that it is not circular. I am not saying that it is – there may be something important that I am missing. But to me, you seem to be saying that my simulation must involve a pairing of symbol with meaning (cf DNA sequence with amino acid) that does not arise from either Chance or Necessity, which seems to me to be the same as saying, “that is not causal”.
No, that is not what I am saying, at all. In fact, this probably goes to the “problem statement” that you were flirting with earlier in the conversation. What I am saying is that the cause of this very well-recorded fact is the input of design, and you say it can be created by chance and necessity. This is the very purpose of the simulation – to show that the claim of design is not necessary, and that chance and law alone can establish these relationships. The sequences of nucleotides in DNA, and the order of amino acids in proteins, are two discrete objects. They are separated by both space and direct interaction. They are bridged by transcription and translation machinery which includes a physical object which converts one sequence into the other while they remain separate. It responds to the representation at the input, and transfers that representation to a second sequence which is entirely disassociated from the first. This fulfills the operational definition you put forth. And it does so by coding for the objects within the system which make it all work. As I said before, this is NOT (of course) where your simulation must start. But it does have to end up here; because that’s the way we found it.Upright BiPed
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply