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

So, let’s review. 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. These sequences can be understood by the human mind, but they are not mere concepts because, again, they actually do something. The information associated with the cell machinery works whether we think about it or not. Because this information exists outside the realm of the human mind, however, does not mean that it exists as a material reality. Its reality is not “in the matter” but rather in the configuration. 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.” Their error consists in believing that anything that exists outside the mind must necessarily be imbedded in matter. If that was the case, they would have a point. But the reality we are discussing is not material. The reality manifests itself as alternative sequences, and these sequences perform a function, which means that they are more than mere mental concepts.StephenB_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

William Roache (#79) You asked:
Which has more CSI. A human or an onion?
Short answer: a human. The human body contains about 250 different cell types (see this article ). An onion has far fewer cell types, so it's easier to specify.vjtorley_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Hi everyone, I see there's quite a lively debate going on here about information. 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. He/She then leaves the message on your desk. When you get back to the office, you are surprised to learn from the message that the person who called (a friend of yours) has fallen ill and won't be able to make lunch tomorrow. That's information. It's embodied in the phone message, which of course has to be interpreted by you, in accordance with the rules of your language, since mere marks on paper possess no inherent meaning of their own. Does that help?vjtorley_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Eugene S @ 54 Ilíon: "Information exists ‘within’ - and only ‘within’ - minds. There is no information, whatsoever, “out there” in the physical/material world." Eugene S: "I disagree. Information and entropy are the two sides of the same physical reality (max order=max information, chaos=zero information). These two are concepts that represent objective reality outside of us and consequently do not depend on our knowledge about them." I had said (in post # 57) that there is an absurdity in Eugene's objection to my claim; it behooves me to explain it. There are (at least) two ways in which what Eugene wrote is absurd, depending upon how one manages to parse his meaning: 1) In saying, "['Information' and 'entropy'] are concepts that represent objective reality outside of us and consequently do not depend on our knowledge about them" does he mean that the concepts of information and entropy, themselves, "do not depend on our knowledge about them"? Does he mean that the concepts exist independently of any mind who thinks the concepts? I'm sure he doesn't mean that -- even though that is literally what he said/wrote. Rather, I am sure that what he means is that that to which the two concepts refer, that which the two concepts are *about* exists independently of any (human) mind who thinks thoughts about that existing physical reality. In other words, by a charitable reading of what he wrote, he is saying to me, "Even though what you said is correct, it is false." That is absurd. 2) On the other hand, if what he wrote is, after all, what meant to say, then he is saying/meaning that the concepts of information and entropy, themselves, "do not depend on our knowledge about them". He would he saying/meaning that the concepts exist independently of any mind who thinks the concepts! That, too, is absurd. The problem is that (as nearly everyone else), Eugene is confusing and conflating concepts for what they are about. === There is in his post also a problem of talking/thinking about 'entropy' and 'information' in relation to 'order' and 'chaos/disorder', which Mung has touched upon in post #60. More could be said on the issue, but I don't have the time to say more than this: much of the problem with talking and thinking about 'order' and 'disorder' and 'entropy' is that everyone is using the terms equivocally (generally without realizing it). Actually, it's worse than that, because when people start talking about 'order' or 'disorder' in relation to 'entropy' (or also in relation to 'information') they generally use the terms not just equivocally, but in a self-contradictory manner, such that 'order' becomes equated with 'disorder.'Ilion_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

..."is the produc[t] of a designing intelligence"....StephenB_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

---Mung: "Let’s have a look at the wider context." ---"Defining Information: Two Distinctions................. ...................................................................... Yes, I you will recall, I summed up those definitions @43. [a] “The communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.” [b] “The attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences and arrangements of something that produces specific effects.” Equally important, there are two more distinctions that make all the difference. P 327: "DNA and other biological molecules do have large and measurable amounts of information-carrying capacity. But they do not just contain Shannon information; they contain functional information. In virtue of their specific arrangements, the bases in coding regions of DNA and RNA and the amino acids in proteins enable these molecules to perform biological functions. Like the information in machine code or written language, biologial information is not just complex, it is also functionally specified. Thus, to avoid confusion and equivocation, I realized that it was necessary to distinguish: "information content from mere "information carrying capacity" "specified information" from mere "Shannon information, and "specified complexity" from mere "complexity." "The first term in each of these pairs refers to the functional kind of information that DNA possesses. That was the kind of information I needed to explain the origin of." So, given these distinctions, Meyer wants to explain the origin of functional information. The very same kind of information that you and Ilion claim does not exist--except in our minds. But it really does exist and its origin needs to be accounted for. Darwinists can't do it, though even most of them will admit it is there. The explanation is that the functional information found in the DNA molecule is the produce of a designing intelligence and did not emerge through naturalistic, mechanical, material processes.StephenB_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

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
So information is not simply "a sequence of characters or arrangements of something that produce a specific effect," even according to this definition.Mung_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Definition of INFORMATION 2 a(1): knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2): intelligence, news (3): facts, data 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 c(1): a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2): something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct d: a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information Any idea why all these fall under the 2nd definition of information? Are these all supposed to have something in common?Mung_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Definition of INFORMATION 1: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information
Because many of my students had this idea of information firmly in mind, they were often confused at first when I talked about information stored in a molecule.
And rightly so! Perhaps you should have listened to them. :)
When we say so-and-so passed on some interesting information, we mean that so-and-so told us something that we didn’t know before, but that we now know, thanks to what we were told.
Now go back and read my post @3. It's almost as if Meyer is using the same source. So right from start in this thread I'm seeking to address what is meant by the term information and to justify my responses in my initial post @1.
In other words information equals knowledge.
I'm not convinced that information EQUALS knowledge.
Yet since neither DNA nor the cellular machinery that receive its instruction set is a conscious agent, equating biological information with knowledge in this way didn’t seem to quite fit.
Some clues in there, somewhere. So let's see if we can find a definition of information that doesn't involve knowledge, or mind, since that seems to be what we are in need of.Mung_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Well, StephenB, there's your two kinds of information, and neither one of them is Shannon information.Mung_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

: Chapter 4 (cont) : Signature in the Cell Defining Information: Two Distinctions 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." Information, according to this definition, equals an arrangement or string of characters, specifically one that accomplishes a particular outcome or performs a communication function. Thus, in common usage, we refer not only to a sequence of English letters in a sentence, but also to a block of binary code in a software program as information. Information, in this sense, does not require a conscious recipient of a message; it merely refers to a sequence of characters that produces some specific effect. This definition suggests a definite sense in which DNA contains information. DNA contains "alternate sequences" of nucleotide bases and can produce a specific effect. Of course, neither DNA nor the cellular machinery that uses its information is conscious. But neither is a paragraph in a book or a section of software (or the hardware in the computer that "reads" it). Yet clearly software contains a kind of information.Mung_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

: Chapter 4 (cont) : Signature in the Cell Defining Information: Two Distinctions Most of us use the term "information" to describe some piece of knowledge. When we say so-and-so passed on some interesting information, we mean that so-and-so told us something that we didn't know before, but that we now know, thanks to what we were told. In other words information equals knowledge. The first definition of information in Webster's dictionary reflects this idea: information is "the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence." Because many of my students had this idea of information firmly in mind, they were often confused at first when I talked about information stored in a molecule. There is a sense in which it could be said that DNA stores the "knowledge" for building molecules in the cell. Yet since neither DNA nor the cellular machinery that receive its instruction set is a conscious agent, equating biological information with knowledge in this way didn't seem to quite fit.Mung_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

: Chapter 4 : Signature in the Cell Life does not consist of just matter and energy, but also information...At some point in the history of the universe biological information came into existence. But how? Theories that claim to explain the origin of the first life must answer this question. But what exactly is information? What is biological information? Beginning in the late 1940s, mathematicians and computer scientists began to define, study, measure, and quantify information. But they made distinctions between several distinct types or conceptions of information. What kind of information does DNA have? What kind of information must origin-of-life researchers "explain the origin of"? As we will see, it is important to answer these questions because DNA contains a particular kind of information...Mung_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Thus, we have Meyer’s operating definition for information: “a sequence of characters or arrangements of something that produce a specific effect.”
Let's have a look at the wider context. Stephen Meyer:
All this suggested to me that there are important distinctions to be made when talking about information in DNA. In the first place, it's important to distinguish information defined as "a piece of knowledge known by a person" from information defined as "a sequence of characters or arrangements of something that produce a specific effect." Whereas the first of these two definitions of information doesn't apply to DNA, the second does. But it is also necessary to distinguish Shannon information from information that performs a function or conveys a meaning. We must distinguish sequences of characters that are (a) merely improbable from sequences that are (b) improbable and also specifically arranged so as to perform a function. That is, we must distinguish information-carrying capacity from functional information.
This is all from Chapter 4 of Signature in the Cell. I'll include more from Ch. 4 in a follow-up post including the full definition from Webster's that Meyer is borrowing from. There's more to it than the bit StephenB posted.Mung_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

[It is also incumbent on both of you to provide your own definition of information (in about the same number of words) and make a case for the science of intelligent design in that context.] --Mung: "No, it isn’t." You have stated with apodictic certainty that the DNA molecule does not contain information. If you don't know what you mean by the word "information," how can you say that it is not contained in a DNA molecule? See how that works? [While you are at it, you might also explain why Darwinists should worry about explaining the origin of information in a DNA molecule or how ID could exploit their failure to do so if such information doesn’t exist except in our minds]. ---"Why should I do such a thing?" If, as you claim, the DNA molecule does not contain information, then, as far as you are concerned, Darwinists need not explain information's origins, which means that they cannot be challenged on that front. I just thought that you might like to explain yourself since you claim to be pro-ID. ---"That’s your position." Are you cuckoo! I have been arguing that the information contained in a DNA molecule is real and exists independent of our mental experience. (I have not argued that it is imbedded in matter). You have aligned yourself with Ilion, who stated that information exists only as a mental phenomenon. As he put it, "Information exists ‘within’ — and only ‘within’ — minds. There is no information, whatsoever, “out there” in the physical/material world." (No one, by the way, has said that information must be imbedded in matter in order to be independent of mind. That is his strawman). --"I don’t think Ilion is talking to you, so don’t expect a response from him." That is his choice.StephenB_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
So, if you think that his inference is valid, you need to be clear what his definition is.
Why don't you post Dembski's definition of information from his 2005 paper?Mung_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth,
My guess is that the onion will come out with less, on compressibility points.
Agreed. However I suppose my follow up is the question of where all that uncompressed "data" came from in the first place. If it was designed, it must have or be CSI. By definition. If it evolved then I guess evolution is then shown to be at the very least capable of creating that additional data - a handy ability to have and an ability presumably accepted by all here on all sides of the argument. As if an onion did not evolve then it must have more CSI then a human! :PWilliamRoache_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

It is also incumbent on both of you to provide your own definition of information (in about the same number of words) and make a case for the science of intelligent design in that context.
No, it isn't.
While you are at it, you might also explain why Darwinists should worry about explaining the origin of information in a DNA molecule or how ID could exploit their failure to do so if such information doesn’t exist except in our minds.
Why should I do such a thing? That's your position. Hint: First you have to convince them that there is information in a DNA molecule. I don't think Ilion is talking to you, so don't expect a response from him.Mung_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

---Elizabeth Liddle: "Look, there are lots of different but widespread usages of the word “information”, and there are also lots of specific definitions used in particular contexts, as well as even more specific operational definitions used when we want to measure the stuff, and which operational definition we use to measure the stuff depends on what we want to know)." Exactly right. The scientist defines the terms and methods most appropriate for the challenge. No one from the outside should presume to dictate those standards.StephenB_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

---Mung: "I think it pretty nigh incoherent to speak of two kinds of information, specified information and unspecified or non-specified information. Therefore I’m also not going to attribute that belief to Meyer." It's more complicated than that, but I don't care to wallow in that distraction because the point at issue is whether or not the DNA contains information and, if so, in what way. Thus, we have Meyer's operating definition for information: "a sequence of characters or arrangements of something that produce a specific effect." In that context, I say that it is perfectly reasonable to say that a DNA molecule "contains" information. Your mission, and Ilion's mission, should you choose to accept it, is to explain why Meyer should not be permitted to define information in that way and make his case for intelligent design on that basis. It is also incumbent on both of you to provide your own definition of information (in about the same number of words) and make a case for the science of intelligent design in that context. While you are at it, you might also explain why Darwinists should worry about explaining the origin of information in a DNA molecule or how ID could exloit their failure to do so if such information doesn't exist except in our minds.StephenB_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

heh. I'd quite like to see this calculation :) First we need to know the complexity of the information, then we need to know the compressibility of it. My guess is that the onion will come out with less, on compressibility points.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

I have a question. Which has more CSI. A human or an onion?WilliamRoache_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Great posts. I think you guys are on to something. You will, in the process, give the materialists a coronary.junkdnaforlife_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Oh, I agree absolutely! It's just that in this case you have an actual definition provided by the original owner of this blog! So that might be a good place to start :)Elizabeth Liddle_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

EL: Science is an ongoing process of "sorting things out". If we waited until it was all "sorted out" before we postulated theories and tested conclusions, we'd all still be sitting in caves smearing colors on the walls.William J. Murray_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Guys, guys, guys! Look, there are lots of different but widespread usages of the word "information", and there are also lots of specific definitions used in particular contexts, as well as even more specific operational definitions used when we want to measure the stuff, and which operational definition we use to measure the stuff depends on what we want to know). But you need to get these things sorted out if you are going to make an argument about living things and design based on an inference about the presence, absence, quantity or whatever of information you observe therein! And if you define information as something that only living things can produce (e.g. minds), then obviously you can't use that definition to infer that living things must have been produced by a mind because they contain information! However, you are, in general, off the hook, because that's not how Dembski defines information when he makes his Design Inference. So, if you think that his inference is valid, you need to be clear what his definition is.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

...."We now know that organisms come from organisms because organisms possess information rich macro-molecules and a complex information-rich system for processing and replicating the information stored in those molecules." ...."Repeated experience about the origins of information-rich systems suggest two possibilities, not one. Either information-rich systems arise from pre-existing sytems of information via a mechanism or replication, or information systems arise from mind. We have repeated experiences of both. Even so, our experience also affirms --- based on cases in which we know the cause of such systems--that systems capable of copying and processing other information ultimately arise from intelligent design. After all, the computer hardware that can copy and process information in software originated in the mind of the engineer."StephenB_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

I also reject the idea that Meyer thinks Shannon information is the same as information content. He pretty much tells us that he doesn't. So if it's not information content, what is it? So here we have information content, and here we do not have information content, but we do have some kind of information? Let's call it content-less information. Oh, that makes sense.Mung_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

–Mung: “From this I’d have to say it’s not likely that he [Meyer] believes Shannon information is a kind of information.” StephenB:
P. 108: “So, what kind of information does DNA contain, Shannon information or specified information. Mere complexity or specified complexity? The answer is—both.”
Just before the text you cite we find:
Smith's sequence exhibits what has been called specified complexity, while Jones's exhibits mere complexity. The term specified complexity is, therefore, a synonym for specified information or information content.
I reject the idea that Meyer thinks mere complexity is a kind of information. I think it pretty nigh incoherent to speak of two kinds of information, specified information and unspecified or non-specified information. Therefore I'm also not going to attribute that belief to Meyer. Meyer says what he means by DNA containing Shannon information. He means by it that DNA has information-carrying capacity. That specific phrase occurs four times in the very next paragraph beginning with the very next line! So let's look at what he wrote in context:
So, what kind of information does DNA contain, Shannon information or specified information. Mere complexity or specified complexity? The answer is—both. First, DNA certainly does have a quantifiable amount of information-carrying capacity as measured by Shannon's theory. It's no wonder Ilion wants nothing to do with you. By the way, would you care to point us to where Meyer defines information, since that seems to be a peeve of yours?
Mung_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Not to nit-pick a word, but symbols don't actually "carry" or "transmit" information in a strict sense (although using those words as an accepted metaphor for what is actually going on is probably okay in a pinch). It's more like symbols "activate" information. If one has an epiphany, or a realization, it's more like information (meaning about something) has been "activated" than built or transferred in a material manner. For instance, we are exchanging letters, if the information was in the letter, then I would get what information you sent; but that's not true, because my interpretation of the symbols on the letter, even though we speak the same language, can be completely different from what you meant. This, the letter isn't carrying or transferring the information; the symbols are used to activate information. We send a code that we best devise hoping to activate information in the recipient as close to our intention as possible. But if the letter actually carried the information we impart in the symbols, and if it was actually transferred by the letter, there would never be any "misunderstanding". Also, something in your letter may activate an epiphany or great insight that you never intended; that information was certainly not "in the letter".William J. Murray_{July 6, 2011
July
07
Jul
6
06
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply