Shallit’s Chronic Foot-in-Mouth Disease

_{William Dembski

November 27, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Jeff Shallit | Thomas Nagel | Steve Meyer

I knew Jeffrey Shallit as a reasonable computational number theorist at the University of Chicago in the 1980s. When it comes to ID, however, he simply can’t think straight. Repulsed by Thomas Nagel’s high praise of Stephen Meyer’s SIGNATURE IN THE CELL (noted here at UD), Shallit calls Nagel a fool and then cites as evidence Nagel’s acceptance of Meyer’s claims about information:

Meyer claims, over and over again, that information can only come from a mind — and that claim is an absolutely essential part of his argument. Nagel, the brilliant philosopher, should see why that is false. Consider making a weather forecast. Meteorologists gather information about the environment to do so: wind speed, direction, temperature, cloud cover, etc. It is only on the basis of this information that they can make predictions. What mind does this information come from? SOURCE

Perhaps Shallit has not read Meyer or is just being willfully obtuse, but Meyer stresses over and over again in his book the difference between specified and unspecified information. Shallit here confuses the two.

Comments

I suppose that answers that question...Upright BiPed_{December 20, 2011
December
12
Dec
20
20
2011
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

or....is this the point (articulating how the physical observations are wrong) where you'll regress into silence?Upright BiPed_{December 20, 2011
December
12
Dec
20
20
2011
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

...and I bet if you are pressed on the issue, you would be able to articulate how they are wrong...is that right?Upright BiPed_{December 20, 2011
December
12
Dec
20
20
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

No thanks. I already understand your arguments and concluded that they are wrong.lastyearon_{December 20, 2011
December
12
Dec
20
20
2011
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

LYO, you seem to have come unhinged by the observable physical evidence of a semiotic state in protein synthesis. If you have a "request for clarity", the I am all ears.Upright BiPed_{December 20, 2011
December
12
Dec
20
20
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

All that needs to be done is to prove that Jesus is the son of God. Information and specified complexity and complex specified information and semiotic and DNA prove that Jesus is the son of God, so you can take all your dumb criticisms, and your stupid requests for clarity and mathematical rigor and just shut-up! Just shut-up, because Jesus is the son of God!lastyearon_{December 20, 2011
December
12
Dec
20
20
2011
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Mark: Your points are correct. But Abel's point is that prescriptive information is completely different in form and properties from simple matter configurations that determine results. Distinguishing the two main subsets of semiotic information as descriptive and prescriptive is very useful, but I agree with you that in some cases the distinction is not so clear cut. But for DNA, I have no doubts that it is essentially prescriptive information. Moreover, DNA protein coding genes have all the characteristics of true semitoic prescriptive information: they are symbolic (based on a mapping based on a symbolic code), they are very complex (high dFSCI), they are pseudorandom in form and highly functional in meaning, and they are essentially the result of the functional setting of individual configurable switches (the individual nucleotides in the sequence), whose configuration cannot be detemined by any biochemical laws, but only by functional expectations. I know what you will say: you will say that the neo darwinian algorithm can explain all those things. As you know, I strongly believe that that is false. We have discussed that many times in detail. But here I would only want to emphasize that DNA information is, in form and substance, prescriptive information of the best kind. The weak attempts to explain it in a different way can be dealt separately.gpuccio_{December 20, 2011
December
12
Dec
20
20
2011
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

"Squeezing your instructions down to a minimum does nothing more than assume that the reader is a repository of some required information." Yes, indeed. That is a prerequisite of semiotic information processing. The receiver necessarily has some initial tuning, i.e. knowledge of the alphabet, the syntax, some initial vocabulary and the semantics. The receiver already anticipates some information input. E.g. if I say "tree", this will mean a plant in English but the number 3 in Russian, for example. So context is crucial. And until such times as you resolve possible ambiguities, no semantic information is actually passed.Eugene S_{December 20, 2011
December
12
Dec
20
20
2011
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

To be more precise, one first needs to introduce a language with which we can describe an object. Then all essential (desired) properties of the object one wants to measure information about, are cast into strings in that language. Information theory showns it is always possible. Then you measure the length of the shortest string amongst all possible strings that describe the object to the required level of accuracy. BTW, 'the shortest' already assumes possible legitimate compression (i.e. compression without loss of information). The length of the shortest string gives us Kolmogorov complexity of information associated with the object. In practice, e.g. JPG format achieves a high compression rate without any noticeable image quality loss, so we can accurately enough say that the size of a JPG image file is a good measure of information complexity of the look of the portrayed object(s) with respect to the relevant alphabet (binary understandable by the relevant applications).Eugene S_{December 20, 2011
December
12
Dec
20
20
2011
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

VC:
The fact that you’ll never be able to arrive at an objective value describing the CSI...
That is OK. Getting an exact number isn't important when dealing with objects. All that needs to done is to show what is required to get it accomplished- for example to make the cake.Joseph_{December 2, 2009
December
12
Dec
2
02
2009
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
What problem?
The fact that you'll never be able to arrive at an objective value describing the CSI of your cake because the content of the description of the actions required to make that cake varies depending upon an arbitrary decision (dictated by pragmatic concerns) regarding how much of this required background information you include (do you include instructions for growing sugar cane?)Voice Coil_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

It is a capturing of the actions- that is all I am trying to do. VC:
That does nothing to solve the problem.
What problem? I fully understand that it is information all the way down. I also understand that someone can try to make things more difficult then they are or have to be. That problem I do not care to solve. And as far as I can tell that may be the only problem here.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
It is a capturing of the actions- that is all I am trying to do.
That does nothing to solve the problem. Your instruction may read "Whip two eggs," but correct execution of the action specified ("whip") still depends upon background knowledge of the user of the recipe - e.g. how one whips an egg, with what tool, for how long, to what end, etc. Again you've depended upon off-loaded knowledge of actions such as "whip," which can be assumed/described with varying degrees of resolution.Voice Coil_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

So let me explain-
The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Artifact
It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.
One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.
Data collection and compression. (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control) A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Voice Coil, Yes it was an amusing thread seeing that the evolutionitwits who posted there didn't have a clue.
A fatal problem with your definition is that to attain the “minimum amount of information required” typically entails assuming knowledge in the user of the recipe.
It is a capturing of the actions- that is all I am trying to do. I explained that. It appears that you have reading comprension issues.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
He would first have to break down those characters into bits. And then, as I have said before (several times) that would only give you the minimum amount of information required.
This may have been discussed in the amusing thread to which you have linked, but I haven't time to read the whole thing right now. A fatal problem with your definition is that to attain the "minimum amount of information required" typically entails assuming knowledge in the user of the recipe. You may express an instruction minimally as "whip two eggs" and boil down the bit content of that statement. However, that assumes that the reader knows what eggs are and how to whip them. Knowledge of chicken eggs, how to attain them, and how to whip them must reside somewhere or no cake will be made; hence that information too is properly part of the minimal information required to make a cake. Squeezing your instructions down to a minimum does nothing more than assume that the reader is a repository of some required information. The information content of your recipe will therefore vary with these assumptions and the resulting detail and resolution of each step.Voice Coil_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

From The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories By Dr Meyer:
Thus, we can pose a question, not only about the origin of genetic information, but also about the origin of the information necessary to generate form and structure at levels higher than that present in individual proteins. We must also ask about the origin of the “specified complexity,” as opposed to mere complexity, that characterizes the new genes, proteins, cell types and body plans that arose in the Cambrian explosion. Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.
Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

jitsak:
Whoa, are you seriously claiming that the minimum amount of information in a cake is the sum total of the bits in the characters of the recipe?
Yes I am. As I said the recipe captures the actions required to make the cake.
But I can make the number of characters in a recipe arbitrarily large by breaking down steps into ever smaller steps.
Sure you can. However that goes against what I said. Perhaps you should read what I posted- just click on the links in comments 25 & 30. As a said "so easy an evolutionitwit couldn't do it". So thanks for proving my point.Joseph_{December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

"I hope we all can agree with Shallit that weather information does not arise from an intelligent source"
Then exactly where does weather information come from? Does it come from the atoms of hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen? Is information actually contained within a thing of interest, or is it about a thing of interest? And if it is about a thing of interest, then what must take place for that information to be realized?Upright BiPed_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

R0b:
I hope we all can agree with Shallit that weather information does not arise from an intelligent source, even when that information is conveyed in hieroglyphics, a book, or a radio signal.
The weather information arises from hard work- mainly observations and computer modeling.Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

R0b:
What does “specified” information even mean to Meyer?
He- Meyer- says it refers to biological function. And Shallit is clueless.Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Borne @ 3:
The guy needs to go back to school and take “Information 101?. Such an glaring error of conflation is inexcusable from Shallit.
If you know of any information theory curriculum that teaches the distinction between "specified" and "unspecified" information, I'd love to hear about it. What makes you think that Meyer's claim applies only to "specified" information? What does "specified" information even mean to Meyer?R0b_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, Meyer's claim that information always originates from intelligence certainly applies to specified information. But it's not clear to me that he applies this claim only to specified information. For instance, in his op-ed in the Boston Globe, he says:
Information - whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal - always arises from an intelligent source.
There is nothing in the op-ed about specified information. I hope we all can agree with Shallit that weather information does not arise from an intelligent source, even when that information is conveyed in hieroglyphics, a book, or a radio signal. I also note that in the first chapter of his recent book, he points out that there are several different conceptual approaches to information. He introduces Shannon's and Gilder's approaches as examples, and says:
So should we think of information as thought -- as a kind of mental chimera etched in stone or burned onto compact discs? Or can we define information less abstractly as, perhaps, just an improbable arrangement of matter? Whatever information is -- whether thought or an elaborate arrangement of matter -- one thing seems clear. What humans recognize as information certainly originates from conscious or intelligent activity.
This seems to indicate that his claim applies even to Shannon's definition of information. If that isn't Meyer's intent -- and I don't think that it is -- then his words are misleading. Meyer's account of information is confusing at best. He talks of "specific" information in his book, but I don't recall him telling us what he means by that. Your (Dr. Dembski's) concept of specificity isn't explained until almost the end of the book, in a chapter entitled "Another Road to Rome." Furthermore, it seems that in Meyer's mind, the terms "complexity" and "information" indicate both irregularity and improbability. That is, they indicate an intersection of algorithmic and classical information. Contrast this to CSI, which indicates an intersection of low probability (under natural hypotheses) and a lack of algorithmic information. In summary, Meyer's usage of the term information is unclear and inconsistent. Perhaps Meyer is guilty of poor articulation rather than mistaken ideas. If so, he might consider explaining to Shallit and other critics exactly what it is that he's claiming.R0b_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

You don't see. By the time one gets to that level of detail it should already be obvious that agency involvement was required. However if one really wanted to one could go into as much detail as one wants in order to get a more comprehensive estimate as to how much information is required to make any specific cake.Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

So, I see. You were clever to avoid discussion of the bits of information in the manufactured ingredients, like flour. Turtles all the way down.hummus man_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

See also: Destructing oleg, cakeboy strikes back!!!Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

hummus man, Thank you for helping me make my point. Ya see the language thingy is explained on my blog. The information is just a capturing of the actions required to bring about the cake.Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
He would first have to break down those characters into bits. And then, as I have said before (several times) that would only give you the minimum amount of information required.
Well, you know how those Darwinists like to think up trick questions. He would have probably just asked if a cake made in an English speaking country (where it takes multiple alpha characters to make up a word) would have more information than a cake made in Japan (where a single character represents the same word). Maybe we could ask Nakashima-san.hummus man_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Joseph,
And then, as I have said before (several times) that would only give you the minimum amount of information required.
Whoa, are you seriously claiming that the minimum amount of information in a cake is the sum total of the bits in the characters of the recipe? But I can make the number of characters in a recipe arbitrarily large by breaking down steps into ever smaller steps. For example,by replacing "add a spoonful of sugar" with "add a grain of sugar add another one and another one and do it again another one please please one more throw in another sugar grain baby . . . and another grain if you please" and so on. Therefore, a cake contains infinite bits of information. So much for conservation of information I guess.jitsak_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

hummus man, I take you that you don't understand the concept of information. No surprise there...Joseph_{November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply