Since you asked

_{Vincent Torley

July 5, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

I’m generally happy to answer questions from anyone, if I think they’re interesting enough. Recently the following seven questions were brought to my attention. I thought they merited a response, so here goes. The answers given below are my own; readers are free to disagree if they wish.

1. Does a spider web, a bee hive, a mole burrow, a bird nest, a termite mound, or a beaver dam have “biological function”, and do they have “information”?

All of the above structures combine the characteristics of high probabilistic complexity (i.e. it is difficult for natural processes lacking foresight to generate them) and low descriptive complexity (i.e. they are easy to describe in a few words). Hence they all contain complex specified information (CSI). Insofar as they are useful to the creatures that make them, they could also be said to have a function. However, I wouldn’t say that these structures have a “biological function.” Biological function, properly speaking, belongs to organs or systems inside an organism’s body, which enable the organism to perform some useful task.

2. Does a tool that is made and used by a bird, a chimpanzee, other non-human primates, any other organism that isn’t human, or a human, have “information”, and does it have “biological function”.

Complex specified information, yes. Biological function, no.

3. Does the organism understand and/or generate information when building a nest, web, hive, dam, etc.?

The organism certainly generates complex specified information when building these structures. Does it understand this information? No. It cannot explain and justify its actions. It cannot say why it built these structures this way and not that way, so I’d say it lacks understanding.

4. Does the organism understand and/or generate information when making and using a tool?

Same as for question 3.

5. Apply the same questions to an organism, such as a bird, a non-human primate, or a human, but substitute tools that are not made by the organism. For instance, natural objects that the organism doesn’t modify, but does select and use as a tool.

Owing to their specificity and suitability for a particular job, these natural objects contain a certain amount of complex specified information (in most cases, a small amount). However, no new information is generated here.

6. If there’s information in any of the things I mentioned above (web, hive, dam, nest, tool, etc.) is it “functional complex specified information”?

No. None of the structures in questions 1 to 5 exhibit functional complex specified information, because they are not patterns embodied in structures that enable the structures to perform some function or useful task. Functional complex specified information can on the other hand be ascribed to systems in an organism’s body that are biologically useful.

And one more question:

7. When a cephalopod changes its shape, texture, or colors, does it understand and/or generate information (is it functional complex specified information?), and does that change of shape, texture, or colors have biological function?

I’d say this is a genuine case of functional complex specified information. The patterns are inside the organism, and they enable it to perform a biologically useful task.

Recommended reading:
here, here and here.

Comments

EL: "Because in no case can we ascribe sentience to either the sender or the receiver, so scarequotes seemed appropriate." Do you really mean 'sentience'? Are you sure you don't mean 'sapience'? A bananna slug is 'sentient,' but we have no reason even to suspect that it is 'sapient.'Ilion_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

Mung: "A random sequence of coin tosses does not contain information. We can however, obtain information *about* the sequence." I would say "create," rather than "obtain;" for "obtain" implies that the information *about* the sequence of coin tosses exists independently of our efforts to "obtain" it and/or think about it once we have "obtained" it.Ilion_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

Mung:
Why so many quote marks Elizabeth? :) And nary a one reserved for the word information itself! So in your many examples, is there any case in which the “information” is not about anything at all?
Because in no case can we ascribe sentience to either the sender or the receiver, so scarequotes seemed appropriate. No, there is no case in which the "information" is not about anything. It's all "functional" information in that it all serves the self-persisting or self-replicating capacity of something (cell, organism, population).Elizabeth Liddle_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

From The Design of life specified complexity - An event or object exhibits specified complexity provided that (1) the pattern to which it conforms identifies a highly improbable event (i.e., it has high PROBABILISTIC COMPLEXITY) and (2) the pattern itself is easily described i.e., has low DESCRIPTIVE COMPLEXITY). Specified complexity is a type of information. specification - A pattern that in the presence of COMPLEXITY can be employed to draw a design inference. Such a pattern exhibits low DESCRIPTIVE COMPLEXITY. probabilistic complexity - A measure of the difficulty for chance-based processes to reproduce an event. See COMPLEXITY. descriptive complexity - A measure of the difficulty needed to describe a pattern. See COMPLEXITY. complexity - The degree of difficulty to solve a problem or achieve a result. The most common forms of complexity are probabilistic (as in the probability of obtaining some outcome) or computational (as in the memory or computing time needed for an algorithm to solve a problem). Kolmogorov complexity is a form of computational complexity that measures the length of the minimum program needed to solve a computational problem. Descriptive complexity is likewise a form of computational complexity, but generalizes Kolmogorov complexity by measuring the size of the minimum description needed to characterize a pattern. complex specified information - Information that is both complex and and specified. Synonymous with SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY.Mung_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Ilion:
Sometimes, information describes a thing, sometimes it doesn’t And, if you wish to say that by ‘specification’ you mean something different than ‘description,’ I reply that sometimes, information specifies a thing, sometimes it doesn’t.
ok, all well and good. But, is it possible to specify a thing without information? Is there a way to quantify "how much information" is required to specify a thing?
BUT, information is always *about* some thing or other;
I am in complete agreement. If I ever say otherwise hold my feet to the fire. I've been making that argument for months now and was doing so before I had any sources to back up my position. A random sequence of coin tosses does not contain information. We can however, obtain information *about* the sequence. I'll respond to other points after more thought.Mung_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Why so many quote marks Elizabeth? :) And nary a one reserved for the word information itself! So in your many examples, is there any case in which the "information" is not about anything at all?Mung_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

And that's only a sample of course. I haven't even mentioned neurons!Elizabeth Liddle_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Lemme try to help: There are a number of ways in which the biosphere can be regarded as the site of transmitted information. 1. When a "parent" cell divides, it "transmits" information to the daughter cells, in the sense that the daughter cells "receive" information as to how to construct themselves into reasonably faithful copies of the parent cell. Sender: parent cell Receiver: daughter cell Message: DNA copy About: how to construct yourself 2. Cells also receive "signals" from other cells, and from the outside environment which "tell" the cell what proteins to express. Sender: other cells/external environment Receiver: receiver cell Message: chemicals About: what proteins you should express 3. Information is "transmitted" from the DNA via "messenger" RNA, which, in turn, transmits that information to the ribosome which "uses" that information to output proteins. Sender: DNA Receiver: ribosome Message: messenger RNA About: what protein to construct 4. Some of these proteins also act as "messengers" that modulate cell signalling, and "tell" the cell which proteins to express when, in response to which signals. Sender: Ribosome Receiver: DNA Message: protein About: what genes to switch off 5. At population level, the environment transmits information into the collective genome, in the form of allele prevalence in each generation. For example, the fact that environment rich in a particular foodstuff that is best digested by phenotypes with a particular trait is "recorded" in each generation in the form of changed allele frequencies. Sender: Environment Receiver: population Message: resources, hazards About: what alleles best survive in this environment All these examples of information transfer are inter-related. In each case there is a "sender", a "receiver" and a "message". In all cases the message is "about something.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

---Mung: "To set the record straight, that’s not a quote of Dembski. I think I missed a closing italic, but you should perhaps have taken notice of where I used quote marks and where I stopped using quote marks. That’s an indicator." Well, the problem, Mung, is that the last passage you wrote in Dembski's name was designed to stretch the comments that preceded it into an argument that the author was, in no way, trying to make. You were, as you often do, reading into his words something that wasn't there. Unfortunately, you just happened to place quotation marks around your misinterpretation, making things a bit more clumsy. It's always the double mistakes that kill us.StephenB_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

I already have a room; I mean, a room in addition to my house. And, after the work-day tomorrow, I get to go home for the weekend. Yeah!Ilion_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Mung @109 (quoting WJM): "Information references or describes the thing; it isn’t an aspect of the thing itself." Mung: "In the current context I’m inclined to say that information specifies the thing and that the specification of the thing is not an aspect of the thing itself." Isn't the sense of 'specification' you have in mind the same as 'description'? Sometimes, information describes a thing, sometimes it doesn't And, if you wish to say that by 'specification' you mean something different than 'description,' I reply that sometimes, information specifies a thing, sometimes it doesn't. BUT, information is always *about* some thing or other; it always means something (even if the meaning is false and the 'information' is more properly called 'disinformation.') Consider the thought: "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain" -- consider the thought, the concept, not the words by which I signal to you that I want to to think the thought. Does it 'specify' anything? If it does, I can't see what that thing might be. But, the thought is about something and it means something (even if not much). And, surely, at this late cultural date, no one of adult age is *surprised* by the thought.Ilion_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Mung quoting Dembsk "We don’t even need to ask if it contains information. Asking whether it contains CSI is the wrong question." To set the record straight, that's not a quote of Dembski. I think I missed a closing italic, but you should perhaps have taken notice of where I used quote marks and where I stopped using quote marks. That's an indicator. You two ought to get a room. Are you paying? I'd rather have one with Stephen Meyer, if you don't mind.Mung_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

---Mung quoting Dembski: "We don’t even need to ask if it contains information. Asking whether it contains CSI is the wrong question." Context, context, context. The design of life promotes a parallel theme. Meyer's book, on the other hand, emphasizes, among other things, the cell's function, which means that he is discussing not only what the cell indicates [exhibits] but also what it does [a function it contains]. A written paragraph "exhibits" specified complexity, but it performs no biological function, that is, it contains no processing unit like a cell. That is why Meyer continually uses the word "contain." Nice try, though.StephenB_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

--Mung: "Here’s more of your own words: "But yes, Meyer in those texts is confused (and confusing).” Those are your words @58. I never said them nor would I ever say them. I am going to be charitable here and assume that you are getting a little rattled and that you didn't really mean to purposely tell an outright lie. So, if you offer a quick apology for inadvertently attributing your comment to me, all will be well. I will even give you a pass on this: ---Go away little man." Did you pick that one up from Ilion, who was responding to Mike: ---"You should go bother someone else." He seems to have won your heart. ---Mung to Ilion @42: "grr...Ilion" ---Ilion to Mung @47: "grr yourself, Mung" You two ought to get a room.StephenB_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

From The Design of Life, Chapter 7, Specified Complexity. "Often, when an intelligent agent acts, it leaves behind an identifying mark that clearly signals its intelligence. This mark of intelligence is known as specified complexity." "But what is specified complexity? An object, event, or structure exhibits specified complexity if it is both complex...and specified..." "Design theorists take this mark of intelligence and apply it to naturally occurring systems. When they do, they claim to find that certain irreducibly complex molecular machines exhibit specified complexity..." So it would be good to frame the question in a manner appropriate to the argument. Does the event, object or structure exhibit specified complexity? We don't even need to ask if it contains information. Asking whether it contains CSI is the wrong question.Mung_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

---Mung: "So we have everything required for the ID argument without having to say DNA contains information. ---"So no I haven’t, nor has Ilion, cut the legs out from under ID. Sorry to burst your bubble StephenB (not really)." Oh, good grief. Let me try to lay this out from scratch so that anyone can understand it. The cell contains an information processing system that functions like a computer processing system. Would anyone deny that a computer “contains” its processing system? What is the point of denying that the cell “contains” a similar processing system? As I say, our mind can apprehend these things, but it does not cause them, nor is it needed for their operation. Information, in this context, is more than just something that resides in our minds. Does our mind store and encode information for the organism in question? No, the cell’s information processing system does it, much like that of a computer’s processing system. In each case, a designer's intelligence is indicated as the cause. Does our mind process the information to produce the DNA's functional outcome? No, the cell’s processing system does it much like that of a computer. In each case, a designer's intelligence is indicated as the cause. Is our mind needed or involved in the process by which the cell encodes what Meyer calls the “higher order” regulatory information? Or course not. The DNA contains information in dramatically important ways AND they all exemplify design patterns. It’s just crazy to say that these patterns exist only in our minds. They exist in the DNA and our mind apprehends tham. We have rational minds that enable us to apprehend a design reality that exists outside of our minds. We recognize these design patterns because, among other things, they resemble those found in our own information technology. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the “machine code of the genes is uncannily computer like.” Bill Gates makes the same point. We recognize the design patters in the DNA because the DNA contains them. If it didn’t contain them, there would be nothing there to recognize.StephenB_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Here are Meyer’s own words... Here are your own words, StephenB:
"So we have everything required for the ID argument without having to say DNA contains information."
Here's more of your own words:
“But yes, Meyer in those texts is confused (and confusing).”
And here's you giving us your version of Meyer's words (one of them anyways):
Thus, we have Meyer’s operating definition for information: “a sequence of characters or arrangements of something that produce a specific effect.”
And here's Meyer quoting Webster's:
But our English dictionaries point to another common meaning of the term that does apply to DNA. Webster’s, for instance, has a second definition that defines information as “the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects.”
Go away little man.Mung_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

--Mung: "So we have everything required for the ID argument without having to say DNA contains information." That's really very funny given the fact that you have not defined the word "contained," the word that caused you so much scandal and the word that you claim doesn't apply. Isn't it a bit odd to say that the DNA does not "contain information" when you don't know what you mean by either word?StephenB_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Mung, Here are Meyer's own words: "The attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects." What part of that do you think Meyer mangled?StephenB_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

DNA, Design, and Information So I had to ask myself, is the idea that DNA contains information necessary or required for the Intelligent Design argument. Obviously the general answer is not unless the intelligent design argument requires the existence of DNA. I don't believe it does. But what about Stephen Meyer's argument. Does it require that DNA contain information? Again, I don't think it does. It could probably even be framed without reference to information at all, but perhaps that will be for another post. In a nutshell the Meyer argument can be stated as follows (using the terms introduced in the OP): There are DNA sequences which exhibit high probabilistic complexity. Some of these same sequences also exhibit low descriptive complexity. The information required to specify these DNA sequences had to come from somewhere, what was the origin of that information? So we leave aside the attempt to have DNA be the cause of some effect. It is the sequences in DNA which are the effecr. I really don't think this view does violence to Meyer's argument. Confusion arises when we start to think of DNA as containing information and this information is then said to be the cause of a protein, etc. It's the generation of a protein that gives us the low descriptive complexity. "DNA sequence A codes for protein B." So we have everything required for the ID argument without having to say DNA contains information. So no I haven't, nor has Ilion, cut the legs out from under ID. Sorry to burst your bubble StephenB (not really).Mung_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

---"Hi StephenB, do you think Stephen Meyer deliberately mangled the Webster’s definition? ---"b: the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects Hi Mung: No, do you? If so, please say so.StephenB_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Information references or describes the thing; it isn’t an aspect of the thing itself.
In the current context I'm inclined to say that information specifies the thing and that the specification of the thing is not an aspect of the thing itself. Unless we're talking about descriptive complexity. :) Which, by the way, where does descriptive complexity come from?Mung_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects Anyone besides me think that as a definition of information this is both too broad and vague? Try to think of all the sorts of things this could apply to. Also, wouldn't this definition of information imply that things (such as DNA sequences) are information rather than that they contain information?Mung_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Mung @94: "So information is not simply “a sequence of characters or arrangements of something that produce a specific effect,” even according to this definition." Moreover, sequences of characters don't, of themselves, produce effects; they are inert.Ilion_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray @ 65: "I think I see Ilion & Mung’s point (correct me if I’m wrong). Information references or describes the thing; it isn’t an aspect of the thing itself. Since the material world only produces “things”, and it doesn’t produces references to or descriptions of things, only non-material minds can produce information, beause information is always “about” the thing." Yes. Information is *about* something else; information means something (some specific information says/means 'this,' but not 'that'). Material things (whether objects, states, conditions, events, etc.) are not *about* other things, they don't *mean* anything (though, minds may impute meaning to them); they just are (there). Call them "brute facts." William J. Murray: "I’m not saying I agree with it, but I think I see the point being made, I do find it very interesting." It's OK that you don't (or don't yet) agree -- you made an honest attempt to understand (and scored, to boot!), as so many others are not attempting to do.Ilion_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

The DNA molecule does, indeed, contain information, which is defined as “a sequence of characters that produces some effect.” DNA contains “alternative sequences” of nucleotide bases and can produce a specific effect.
Hi StephenB, do you think Stephen Meyer deliberately mangled the Webster's definition? b: the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effectsMung_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

hi vjt, Thanks for a topic of lively debate. I want to revisit the OP.
2. Does a tool that is made and used by a bird, a chimpanzee, other non-human primates, any other organism that isn’t human, or a human...
That pretty much sums up every living organism, doesn't it? We could shorten that one a bit then :) So a more focused and specific question might be: Does a tool which is made by a human, such as a hammer, contain information? It's pretty obvious from my answer to the OP that I think not. Some perhaps pertinent questions: What is information? What does it mean for a thing to contain something else? Is information immaterial? What does it mean to say that something immaterial is contained by a material object? What does it mean to say that a hammer contains information? What is the information contained in the hammer information about?
All of the above structures combine the characteristics of high probabilistic complexity...and low descriptive complexity... Hence they all contain complex specified information (CSI).
Here's my view: It requires information to specifiy the pattern. Shannon information is a measure of information. CSI is a measure of information. DNA does not "contain" Shannon information. It is not appropriate to speak of objects "containing" CSI. The information to specify the patterns/structures is not contained within the patterns/structures. The information which specifies a hammer is not contained within the hammer.
Mung_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

V.Torley: "... I'd like to draw a distinction between information and inherent meaning. Inherent meaning belongs only to minds and mental states. Other things have meaning only insofar as we agree to endow them with meaning: their meaning is derived. Information, on the other hand, can be attribute to anything which is capable of surprising a mind. Let’s take a simple example. While you are out of your office, the person at the desk next to you takes a message from someone who phoned you. ..." Every day (every day!) for ten years, when I'd get back to my desk from lunch, I'd find some notes, and generally several, referring to phone calls I'd missed while I was out. It didn't seem to matter when I took lunch ... there they were. Then, one day, I came back from lunch, and there was not a single note referring to a missed phone call. Boy, was I ever surprised! Ergo, nothing is, or can be, "information."Ilion_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

"We have two bloggers who argue that the DNA molecule does not contain information because, as they would have it, information exists only “within the mind.” This is why I suggested in comment #70 that it needs to be remembered that the representations and protocols (that make information exchange possible) are discrete things. The information itself is non-material, but can physically exist in a representation. That reprepsentation requires a protocol. It is the protocol that must exist in the receiver. And by virtue of access to that protocol, the information can exist (cause change) there as well.Upright BiPed_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Hello Dr Torley, May I make a couple of comments here…
…since mere marks on paper possess no inherent meaning of their own. Does that help?
Unless I am simply missing your point, I think this view is mistaken for very discernable reasons. In this passage you italicize the word ‘inherent’ to draw attention to that particular property. But that is specifically the issue. Of course the symbols don’t have “inherent” meaning; if they did they couldn’t act as symbols, and in fact, they would not be symbols. That is exactly the point. A symbol is a discrete thing which acts as a representation or signifier, mapped to another discrete thing. They must be endowed with that mapping by some mechanism. This is the exact opposite of having ‘inherent’ meaning. It seems to me that making a comment about an object regarding a property it cannot possess, says nothing about the object. It also seems to me that when breaking down the phenomena in order to understand it, we don’t get to eviscerate the objects of what properties they possess, nor do we get assign them any particular property requirements, only to then acknowledge that they don’t possess them. A symbol is not a thing which has inherent meaning, it is the given meaning that causes it to be a symbol. You are measuring temperature with a tuning fork, then wanting to make distinctions based upon the measurement. I think that is a mistake. The real question is what mechanism(s) can assign meaning to a symbol.Upright BiPed_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply