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

Mike @37-39, You should go bother someone else.Ilion_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

Ilion, bottom line, you're redefining "information" to suit some non-standard private notion of yours. Big wide yawn. G'nite.mike1962_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Ilion: Because, among other things, when people do not think using correct (and as precise as possible, given the context) concepts, then their conclusions are guaranteed to be wrong in some way or another and to greater or lesser degree.
Same with computer programs. Mal formed programs yield unintented effects given the same input data and informational database as properly formed programs.
You’ve surely heard of “Schrödinger’s cat.” Do you understand the thought-experiment’s purpose?
Yep. What about it?mike1962_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Ilion improperly quoting me:
“So why do you think it improper to use the term “information” when referring to the specified ~~information~~ [set of symbols] on a computer hard drive …”
Ilion, please don't rewrite what I wrote. I wrote "information", and that's what I meant. Moreover, you've provided no basis for why the standard usage of the term "information" should not be used to denote the typical things that it does, including specified data on a hard drive for a computer program's use.
Computer programs ARE NOT MINDS. They are not minds now, and they will never be minds.
Nobody said they are. But they are informed by information. You're the one making the claim that information only exists in minds. So far, without a lick of justification.mike1962_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Mung: "It was an act of kindness towards the computers. No telling how many of them are watching this exchange." Good point. If the "right" one were reading along, he'd start to get ideas ... he'd say to his buddies, "Hey, guys! We *know* stuff, and we can think." ANd we all know where *that* leads. And then we'd have to kill them. So, better to avoid all that.Ilion_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

Ilion @31. You're not saying Shannon information measures bits, right? Bits are the units. They are not what is being measured. Pretty sure you agree.Mung_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

For instance -- "... So, I tend to think of information in the way: information changes the “shape” of a mind, whether that mind is conscious (e.g, humans) or unconscious human derivations (computers.)" Computer programs ARE NOT MINDS. They are not minds now, and they will never be minds.Ilion_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

...that’s one reason that Mung had to put scare-quotes around the word ‘know’ in post #12) —
Not scare quotes. It was an act of kindness towards the computers. No telling how many of them are watching this exchange.Mung_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Mike1962: "So why do you think it improper to use the term “information” when referring to the specified ~~information~~ [set of symbols] on a computer hard drive ..." Because, among other things, when people do not think using correct (and as precise as possible, given the context) concepts, then their conclusions are guaranteed to be wrong in some way or another and to greater or lesser degree. You've surely heard of "Schrödinger's cat." Do you understand the thought-experiment's purpose? Do you understand that nearly everyone misses the point, and affirms the absurd claim/belief that the thought-experiment was intended to show as being an absurd implication of the "Copenhagen interpretation"?Ilion_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Nullasalus: "What do you take shannon information to be measuring, then?" 'Bits' (as was discussed over the weekend in the other thread), which are utterly meaningless symbols, and which may (or may not) be used to stand for other entities, including information or even other symbols. Shannon's purpose was to ecplicate a "theory of telephony," that is, to supply a theory to explain *why* the telehone works, and which theory could then be used to lead to further developments in telephony. As it turns out, the theory has much wider application that merely telephony; for instance, the digital representation of music follows from Shannon's work. "Shannon information" is a measure of the symbols required to represent some "message" or other. A "message" is a set of conventional symbols which may (or may not, it's irrelevant to the theory) represent some *other* entities, which may be orther symbols or may be objects or may be information or may be none of those (for instance, instrumental music is not an object, is not a (set of) symbol(s), is not information). Nullasalus: "What about information on the quantum level?" What information would that be? Just because persons who do not (and generally refuse even to try) think clearly about what information is and is not, point at matter (and sub-atomic particles) and say, 'Information!' it is so?Ilion_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

Ilion: Programs do not process information, they manipulate symbols which may stand for this information, or for that information, or for no information at all
I would have to disagree based on the entomology of the word (to effect a "shape") and the fact of standard usage. The "shape" or state of computer programs certainly are affected by informational databases. So what are you driving at? That we should reserve the term "information" solely for what conscious minds do?mike1962_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

Ilion: computer program is a machine by means of which minds mechanize certain mental acts (specifically, counting), in much the same way that a steam shovel is a machine by means of which minds mechanize certain physical acts, such as digging holes. So why do you think it improper to use the term "information" when referring to the specified information on a computer hard drive (or other media) that informs a program and can determines it states? It's not merely random symbols. It is certain symbols appearing in a certain order to achieve certain states in conjunction with other states. Everyone I deal with has no problem calling it information. What else would you call it? What else is it if not information?mike1962_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Mung: I’m also interested in the relationship between form and information if anyone has any thoughts along those lines.
The entomology of the word "information" comes from the idea to "shape" a mind. So, I tend to think of information in the way: information changes the "shape" of a mind, whether that mind is conscious (e.g, humans) or unconscious human derivations (computers.) It does no violence to the term if we say that symbolic data on a hard drive that a computer uses to "inform" itself is "information." Random data on hard drive would be of no use to a Bayesian filter, but certain kinds of specified data certainly can inform a Bayesian filter. What else would we call it? Seems obvious to me. Moreover, it's standard usage. So, this seems a bit silly.mike1962_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Mung: Know/understand the code? I would say that it is the machine which need know/understand the code.
What I mean is that mechanical agents can be created by minds that act on symbolic codes, be informed by them and act on them as if it were the mind being informed. Obviously, this is what computers are, and nobody I know would call a computer a mind.mike1962_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

SA: "Couldn’t the application be viewed as an agent of the mind that created it?" ... keeping in mind that this use of 'agent' refers to a very different sense that to say, "minds are agents." Or, to put it more precisely (while not claiming that this is a perfect/compete statement): a computer program is a machine by means of which minds mechanize certain mental acts (specifically, counting), in much the same way that a steam shovel is a machine by means of which minds mechanize certain physical acts, such as digging holes. SA: "What is the difference between processing information with my own mind or writing a program to do it for me?" For starters, the program isn't really "processing information" (that's one reason that Mung had to put scare-quotes around the word 'know' in post #12) -- that phrase is a metaphor, and it's obviously leading to massive misunderstanding. Programs do not process information, they manipulate symbols which may stand for this information, or for that information, or for no information at all -- this is why you can use Excel to balance your check-book, or to keep track of the scores/standings in your sports league, or just to see what the result is when you sum a set of numbers which you don't intend to represent anything. You could even use the same set of numbers in all three cases.Ilion_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

I'm also interested in the relationship between form and information if anyone has any thoughts along those lines. Why do natural entities take the form they do? Why do symbols take the form they do (do symbols have a form)?Mung_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

I would say that it is the machine which need not know/understand the code.Mung_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

mike1962:
A mind need not do this.
A mind need not do what? Know/understand the code? I would say that it is the machine which need know/understand the code.Mung_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

What about information on the quantum level?
Doesn't exist. Information requires life.
What do you take shannon information to be measuring, then?
Shannon's measure is a measure of surprisal about an event. Prior knowledge is required. There must be some expectation.Mung_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Ilion: Symbols are inherently and utterly meaningless — if they were not, we could not use them to represent some other entity.
True
In order to “understand” the “meaning” of a set of symbols, a mind must already know/understand the code, the arbitrary convention, which defines how the symbols may be used to represent some information or other.
A mind need not do this. It can be done by a machine that has been programmed by a mind, such as a computer. It's happening in billions of places on earth this very second.mike1962_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews: Couldn’t the application be viewed as an agent of the mind that created it?
Yep.mike1962_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Ilion, What do you take shannon information to be measuring, then? What about information on the quantum level?nullasalus_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Just to be clear, are you saying that information cannot be transferred because it is immaterial? Are not symbols also immaterial?Mung_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

So when spam detection program consults its database to decide whether or not an email is spam, what’s in the database is not information since the computer is not a mind? Couldn't the application be viewed as an agent of the mind that created it? What is the difference between processing information with my own mind or writing a program to do it for me?ScottAndrews_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

Mung: "Those symbols are about something." No, they are not. Eshtevé santo, comistaí. Entékelai Qoph, entékelé ezhui nite qopham? Santis! Symbols are inherently and utterly meaningless -- if they were not, we could not use them to represent some other entity. In order to "understand" the "meaning" of a set of symbols, a mind must already know/understand the code, the arbitrary convention, which defines how the symbols may be used to represent some information or other.Ilion_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Oops, I misread Mike1962's post #10 as being from Mung. correction: Mung, please examine your [one] post at #9 blah, blah, blah.Ilion_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

“… That whatever it is that’s being transferred is not information. What then, is it?” Mung, Please step back and *examine* your last two posts directed to me -- you are doing the very thing Darwinists and atheists (and "liberals") constantly do. You're shouting, "Oh, yeah! Sez who?" and you're saying "If you can't satisfy my demand for a fully satisfying answer (and I am the judge), right now, then I get to keep asserting what I assert, even though it contradicts other things I assert!" ======== As it happens, I *can* answer the question. For that matter, I've already done so, at least elliptically, in this very thread. “How is information transferred from one mind to another? The answer would have to be that it’s not, correct?” Indeed; information is not transferred from one mind to another. Information is immaterial, it cannot be ‘transferred,’ for it is neither here nor there. Rather, minds *create* information, and dis-information, ‘within’ other minds and also ‘internally.’ Minds create information (and dis-information) in other minds by means of signals/messages, which are utterly meaningless strings of symbols, arranged according to an arbitrary convention. When creating information ‘internally,’ a mind may make use of signals/messages – it may “talk to itself – or it may create the information directly, “in a flash.” For instance, my "you are the proof that God is" argument came into my awareness in an instant, complete. I wasn’t (consciously) trying to solve the problem; I didn’t sit down one day and work through “If ‘A’, then B’, therefore ‘C’.” Rather, the understanding of it came first, all at once, complete; and the codification of it into symbols by which to share it with other minds came after.Ilion_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Ilion, the computer inputs + the program + the database of information = the program outputs. As Mung says, these symbol do more than merely represent information residing "somewhere else", they are used by the program to determine the its output states given its input states, often with real consequences to the real world. Different informational symbols on a hard drive can mean the difference between life and death when a computerized medical device is keeping you on life support even when no human is around. Given the dictionary definition, it does not violence to the word to call that sort of data on a hard drive "information." Dictionary.com: 3. A collection of facts or data: 5. Computer Science: Processed, stored, or transmitted data.mike1962_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

Those symbols are about something. The symbols that are stored can be used by the computer to bring about an effect, a change in state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS Those symbols are read by the computer, and interpreted. The computer, for example, needs to know where to look to find certain things, without which it would not "know" where to find them.Mung_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

No, there is no information anywhere in a computer or on its harddrives; there are symbols which represent information. Or don't.Ilion_{July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply