Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Since you asked

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
Information exists ‘within’ — and only ‘within’ — minds. There is no information, whatsoever, “out there” in the physical/material world.
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? I would say it is information by definition since it "informs" the program, it determines its decisions.mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
Ilion:
Information exists ‘within’ — and only ‘within’ — minds. There is no information, whatsoever, “out there” in the physical/material world.
How is information transferred from one mind to another? The answer would have to be that it's not, correct? That whatever it is that's being transferred is not information. What then, is it?Mung
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/ http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/Mung
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
I will give rough initial answers: 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”? --> Yup, function, but not life function. Info can be extracted from the wiring diagram, comes from an internal program expressed instinctually. 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”. --> there is an FSCI threshold. most such would not pass it. biofunction should be reserved to processes in an organism 3. Does the organism understand and/or generate information when building a nest, web, hive, dam, etc.? --> programmed activity, not learned. the root intelligence lies elsewhere 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. --> not beyond FSCI threshold, as not specific enough. any rock within abroad range will do, e.g. 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”? --> depending on complexity, specificity --> remember, these are expressing in-built programs like apps or the like 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? --> it fulfills a matching/camo/dazzle etc program, and expresses the FSCI in it through adaptive behaviour, which is internal, biological and functional. --> it's not just that there is FSCI, but what is its original source. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
I do think that there is a lot of miscommunication in debates over information.
heh. Maybe we can agree on a few things. Maybe not. Information is always information about something. If it doesn't change something, if it doesn't make a difference, if it has no effect, it's not information. A sequence of nucleotides is not information, nor does it contain information simply by virtue of the fact that it's a sequence of nucleotides. Same goes for a register of bits.Mung
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
"Shannon’s analysis of the ‘amount of information’ in a signal, which disclaimed explicitly any concern with its meaning, was widely misinterpreted to imply that ..." I understood that at once, in reading the first few sentences of SHannon's paper. And it really ticks me off that most people *refuse* to understand the fact of the matter. Never mind that they refuse to believe the fact of the matter; they refuse even to understand it.Ilion
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
"... Hence they all contain complex specified information (CSI) ..." No they don't. They don't "contain" any information, whatsoever. You are, as is so common with both Darwinists and IDists, confusing the map for the territory. Information exists 'within' -- and only 'within' -- minds. There is no information, whatsoever, "out there" in the physical/material world.Ilion
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
Shannon’s analysis of the ‘amount of information’ in a signal, which disclaimed explicitly any concern with its meaning, was widely misinterpreted to imply that the engineers had defined a concept of information per se that was totally divorced from that of meaning. We shall find it profitable to ask: ‘To what does information make a difference? What are its effects?’ This will lead us to an ‘operational’ definition covering all senses of the term, which we can then examine in detail for measurable properties. In everyday language we say we have received information, when we know something now that we did not know before. If we are exceptionally honest, or a philosopher, we assert only that we now believe something to be the case which we did not previously believe to be the case. Information makes a difference to what we believe to be the case. It is always information about something. It’s effect is to change, in one way or another, the total of ‘all that is the case’ for us. This rather obvious statement is the key to the definition of information. – Donald M. MacKay, Information, Mechanism and Meaning
A fundamental, but a somehow forgotten fact, is that information is always information about something. – Jan Kahre, The Mathematical Theory of Information
Mung
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
I hope you don't mind if I give my answers, which will be different from yours. I'll just list the questions by number, and not repeat them. 1: No, the spider web, bird's nest, etc do not have information. However, I would agree that information was used by the spider, bird, etc in order to construct those things. I won't comment on "biological function" because, as a non-biologist, I am not at all sure what that should mean. 2: Similar answer. A tool does not have information, but it is built using information. However, at least in the case of humans, we have to make a distinction in the case of computers, notepads, etc, which can have information such as what is written on the notepad. 3 and 4: I have already commented that the organisms use information. As for "understanding", I don't think there is any agreement as to what that would even mean as applied to a spider or a bird. 5: If the bird or other organism is able to use the tool that it has found, and use it in a way that benefits the organism, then it is probably using information in using that tool. 6 and 7: I am doubtful on whether "functional complex specified information" has a clear unambiguous meaning. A general comment The word "information" is used in different ways. Clearly, I am not using it in the same way as vjtorley. I do think that there is a lot of miscommunication in debates over information.Neil Rickert
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
1. They do not CONTAIN information. 2. A tool does not (generally) CONTAIN information. (e.g., a hammer that could build a house.) 3. NO. 4. NO.Mung
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
1 5 6 7

Leave a Reply