To Save Time Barry Argues Both Sides

_{Barry Arrington

August 4, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

In comment [25] to my last post , The ID hypothesis, Elizabeth Liddle asks about information. I think I’ve been at this long enough to predict how an exchange between me and Elizabeth would go.

Barry’s Point 1:
Let’s take the information in your comment [25]. I am sure you will agree your comment contains specified complex information. Indeed, your one little comment contains more specified complex information than we could reasonably attribute to chance and necessity working from the beginning of the universe to this moment.

Barry’s Point 2:
I am sure you will agree that the cells in your body contain more complex specified information than your comment by several orders of magnitude.

Barry’s Question to Elizabeth:
If your comment contains more specified complex information than we could reasonably attribute to chance and necessity working from the beginning of the universe to this moment, and the cells in your body contain several orders of magnitude more complex specified information than your comment, why should we attribute the complex specified information in your body to chance and necessity? Isn’t it more reasonable to attribute the CSI in the cells in your body to intelligent agency, just as we attribute the CSI in comment [25] to intelligent agency?

Elizabeth’s Probable Response 1:
The CSI in the cells in my body can reasonably be attributed to the accretion of random errors.

Barry’s Response to Her Probable Response 1:
Surely you don’t believe your comment [25] could reasonably be attributed to random key strokes by our proverbial monkey. That has a sort of first blush plausibility, but as we all know the math does not work. Then why do you attribute the CSI in the cells in your body to the accretion of random errors?

Elizabeth’s Probable Response 2:
Well, it’s not just random chance. The good random errors are selected for by natural selection and bad random errors are eliminated by natural selection. So it is not pure chance. It is chance (random genetic errors) and necessity (natural selection) combined that results in the CSI.

Barry’s response to her Probable Response 2:
What an extraordinary claim! This remarkable interaction of chance and necessity to which you allude has never been observed even over trillions of reproductive events by bacteria under intense selective pressure. What non-question begging evidence do you have for your remarkable assertion? Remember, Dawkins says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And surely you will agree that saying the staggering amounts of CSI in living things is the result of the accretion of random errors sorted by natural selection is the most extraordinary claim ever made.

Elizabeth’s Probable Response 3:
Let’s change the subject.

Comments

But GAs do demonstrate design. They are designed, by designers, with goals and purposes in mind. Quite unlike evolution, or so we are told.
Populations have an inbuilt goal, which is to survive in the current environment.
That includes the design of the program to generate a timepiece as demonstrated in your linked video, even though the person who wrote the presentation claims there was no goal imposed (8:52). What a laugh.
Right. So the analog of the environment in which biological critters have to survive is a designed environment in which survival depends on enabling some potentially hazardous feature of the environment to tell the time. Let's imagine there really are biological critters that are regularly eaten by predators who nonetheless spare them if the predators find them useful for telling the time. The point is that the design input you are identifying here is not into the design of the clocks but into the environment. In nature that is a given. I've made this point before, but you keep missing it.
So though it is a bit difficult for me to take that person seriously considering the overall argument, tell me what it is you think the program demonstrate?
That Darwinian evolution using no more than chance processes and natural selection can result in the design of something pretty clever (in this case a clock) as long as doing that pretty clever thing (in this case enabling someone to tell the time) contributes to its survival.
Evolution? Are you saying that the timepieces evolved and what takes place in the program is analogous (or even the same as) what takes place with living things?
Yes, exactly that. The fitness criterion (how well can this individual enable me to tell the time and thus avoid instant death?) is, in this case designed, but is exactly analogous to problems presented by the environment in nature (how well can this individual break its fall from its nest and thus avoid instant death?). The clock itself is not designed at all, just as the down that decrease a chick's terminal velocity is not designed at all. Except by evolution. In both cases.
Regardless of what you say in response to those questions, here are my first objections. 1. The initial pool consists of completely random genomes (3:16). How is that like a biological population? It isn’t. This dis-analogy between GAs and natural populations has been pointed out to you before.
It's arguably similar to the kind of early genomes that preceded life. But in any case, you are being over-literal - the starting genomes are random with respect to clock-making, but they are nonetheless minimally functional in that they are all capable of sexual reproduction. It is only with respect to making clocks that they are random, just as a population faced with a new environmental hazard might find itself armed with nothing better to handle it than a random bit of genome. But, finally, your objection is bizarre - the fact that the critters start with random genomes makes the point more strongly, not less - the proto-clocks start off with nothing other than the ability to self-replicate - no "pre-loaded" information in the genome. No "smuggled in" part-solution (a criticism more commonly leveled at GAs).
2. Fully 98% of his initial population does nothing (3:58). And this is like biological evolution how? It isn’t.
Except that they self-replicate with variance. i.e. the thing that is a prerequisite for Darwinian evolution.
3. His “timepieces” do not self-replicate.
Mung, did you watch the video? Blimey, you even saw them at it!!!!
How is this like a living population? It isn’t.
Oh boy.
So here we are, not even past the first generation, and we already have three serious problems with this proposed demonstration.
Well, it was useful, at any rate. Sheds light on why people are so resistant to the idea of Darwinian evolution. Mung, none of your "three serious problems" are problems at all. You could easily re-do it with part-functional clock genomes (just start the algorithm a bit later in the process) so that would answer your first objection. You've missed out that they replicate (your second). And your third is the same as your second (and just as wrong). And your argument that the environment is designed is irrelevant, as I explained. And the one remaining argument that I can see, namely, that they were already functional self-replicators, is an anti-OOL argument not an anti-Darwinian one (as the author points out).Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
But feel free to pick one out and say why it doesn’t demonstrate design.
But GAs do demonstrate design. They are designed, by designers, with goals and purposes in mind. Quite unlike evolution, or so we are told. That includes the design of the program to generate a timepiece as demonstrated in your linked video, even though the person who wrote the presentation claims there was no goal imposed (8:52). What a laugh. So though it is a bit difficult for me to take that person seriously considering the overall argument, tell me what it is you think the program demonstrate? Evolution? Are you saying that the timepieces evolved and what takes place in the program is analogous (or even the same as) what takes place with living things? Regardless of what you say in response to those questions, here are my first objections. 1. The initial pool consists of completely random genomes (3:16). How is that like a biological population? It isn't. This dis-analogy between GAs and natural populations has been pointed out to you before. 2. Fully 98% of his initial population does nothing (3:58). And this is like biological evolution how? It isn't. 3. His "timepieces" do not self-replicate. How is this like a living population? It isn't. So here we are, not even past the first generation, and we already have three serious problems with this proposed demonstration.Mung_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Yes. Let’s leave out the very thing about Demski’s formulation that justifies the rejection of the chance hypothesis. And then let’s say that Barry’s begged the question.
Well, Dembski's CSI does, in a sense. It rolls the test up inside the measure. I'm using the definition he gives here: Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence So anything with certified Dembskian CSI has necessarily passed the improbability test. And it's the test I question.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Or ask DrBot maybe. But feel free to pick one out and say why it doesn't demonstrate design.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Well, you can google as many as you like, Mung.
I want you to pick an actual GA Dr. Liddle. Something from real life. Pick one. One that you think demonstrates the creation of a design by a GA using Darwinian mechanisms. I think we need one that meets the following criteria: a. We can run it on our computers without too much difficulty. b. We have access to the source code. c. The source code is in a language we can agree upon. d. We can modify the source code and observe the effects. Preferably the source code does not need to be compiled or the folks who are interested can download whatever is needed to run the GA without difficulty. If I pick one you probably won't like it, lol. But if you're willing, I can pick one out. I'll watch the vid, though it may be later today.Mung_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Well, you can google as many as you like, Mung. Your problem doesn't seem to be shortage of demonstrations, but difficulty in seeing that that's what they are. I've rebuttted both your objections already, and haven't yet seen a counter-rebuttal. But you could watch this if you have a spare few minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 And tell me why it is not the demonstration you seek. I will then try to explain why it is.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
First of all, the interaction of “chance and necessity” has frequently been observed to result in patterns that are both complex and specified. And while I’m sure I will be beaten down in flames here, I offer you genetic algorithms, in which a population of minimally functional “virtual organisms” capable only of self-replication, the prerequisite for Darwinian evolution) , breed and die in an “virtual environment” that provides various hazards that the individuals have to overcome. And as a result, the genomes of such virtual critters can become both more complex (longer than the originals) and highly specified (they belong to a small subset of patterns that affect their own longevity in that environment). So we know in principle that it works.
An actual demonstration might avoid the flames.Mung_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

And it will contain information in the common or garden sense of being data from which we can gain knowledge. - Elizabeth Liddle
Mung_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
In other words, the third condition that must be fulfilled before a pattern can be said to contain CSI actually begs the very question that you challenge.
You do realize, I hope, that it's not a deductive argument.
3) have a probability of occurring by Chance that is so low that we would not expect to see it even once, given every event in the space and time of the universe.
ok
However, let me re-interpret your question more broadly (i.e. not using Dembski’s mathematical definition, and leaving out his universal probability bound term) as...
Yes. Let's leave out the very thing about Demski's formulation that justifies the rejection of the chance hypothesis. And then let's say that Barry's begged the question.Mung_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
What is good about it, I think, for present purposes, is that it [Webster's definition 2b] does not require a sender and/or receiver.
How does something which is communicated not have a sender and receiver? 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 I wonder why they call it messenger RNA.Mung_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 67:
If I cannot demonstrate the information, then I cannot say with absolute certainty that it is there. That’s the beauty of Nirenberg – he demonstrated it. There is no question that it is there.
And, as I think we are now clear, he demonstrated by demonstrating that a particular pattern, namely a triplet of RNA nucleotides, has a specific effect, namely the transport of a specific amino acid to the ribosome. With regard to the book written in Arabic - yes it could contain information, on the other hand, it could be a decorative sequence of squiggles (after all, it looks really pretty), unless we can discover that particular patterns produce specific effects - that a particular set of squiggles causes an Arabic speaker to utter certain sounds, and to behave in a certain way. So I think the Meyer-cited Webster definition works pretty well, at least as a starting point. What is good about it, I think, for present purposes, is that it does not require a sender and/or receiver. That puts it apart from some meanings of the word, but what matters here is what ID proponents mean by it in the context of an ID claim, not what someone else might mean by it in a different contexts. Will head over to the other thread now.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Hi, Barry! I saw this post earlier in the week, and cleared my diary, as it were, this afternoon, to respond to it:) You write:
In comment [25] to my last post , The ID hypothesis, Elizabeth Liddle asks about information. I think I’ve been at this long enough to predict how an exchange between me and Elizabeth would go. Barry’s Point 1: Let’s take the information in your comment [25]. I am sure you will agree your comment contains specified complex information. Indeed, your one little comment contains more specified complex information than we could reasonably attribute to chance and necessity working from the beginning of the universe to this moment. Barry’s Point 2: I am sure you will agree that the cells in your body contain more complex specified information than your comment by several orders of magnitude. Barry’s Question to Elizabeth: If your comment contains more specified complex information than we could reasonably attribute to chance and necessity working from the beginning of the universe to this moment, and the cells in your body contain several orders of magnitude more complex specified information than your comment, why should we attribute the complex specified information in your body to chance and necessity? Isn’t it more reasonable to attribute the CSI in the cells in your body to intelligent agency, just as we attribute the CSI in comment [25] to intelligent agency?
And you anticipate that my response will be:
Elizabeth’s Probable Response 1: The CSI in the cells in my body can reasonably be attributed to the accretion of random errors.
Well, no :) First of all, if the CSI in the cells of my body could “be reasonably attributed to the accretion of random errors “ then the cells of my body wouldn’t contain CSI as I understand the term. For a pattern to possess CSI it must 1) be complex (have lots of Shannon bits); 2) be specified (be easy to describe); 3) have a probability of occurring by Chance that is so low that we would not expect to see it even once, given every event in the space and time of the universe. Yes, DNA sequences (for instance) are complex (lots of bits); yes, they are specified (we can devise a general description of working genomes i.e. genomes that specify a functional organism), each of which includes a number of subsets of possible working genotypes, but which are only a tiny subset of the Vast number of theoretically possible DNA sequences that do not specify a functional organism at all. However, the last condition is the odd one out. I cannot explain “why my cells contain CSI” by chance without you first demonstrating that they contain CSI, and you cannot demonstrate that they contain CSI without demonstrating that they cannot have come about by chance. In other words, the third condition that must be fulfilled before a pattern can be said to contain CSI actually begs the very question that you challenge. Now, what I might have responded is that iterative feedback processes can create patterns that are both complex (lots of Shannon bits needed to describe the output) and specified (can be members of a subset of comparably complex patterns, consisting of those that can be easily described), and that cells may be, or contain, patterns of that type. But, in that case, they wouldn’t, by definition, possess CSI.
Barry’s Response to Her Probable Response 1: Surely you don’t believe your comment [25] could reasonably be attributed to random key strokes by our proverbial monkey. That has a sort of first blush plausibility, but as we all know the math does not work. Then why do you attribute the CSI in the cells in your body to the accretion of random errors?
Well, obviously I don’t, as I explain above. I don’t attempt to attribute it at all, because it seems to me that it is your job to demonstrate that the CSI is there in the first place! And if you did, then obviously I could not “attribute it to the accretion of random errors, because you would have already demonstrated that it could not be due to the accretion of randome errors. However, let me re-interpret your question more broadly (i.e. not using Dembski’s mathematical definition, and leaving out his universal probability bound term) as: how do you explain the presence in the cells of information that is both Complex (lots of Shannon bits) and Specified (one of a subset of easily described patterns that does something interesting like prescribe an organism) by “accretion of random errors”? Well, the answer lies right there in your word “accretion”. How do errors “accrete”? Well, sometimes errors just pile up, willy nilly. So if you play Chinese Whispers, and every person in the chain gets something a bit wrong, then what comes out at the end will contain nothing of the original message. Additive errors (new stuff) and subtractive errors (missed out old stuff) accumulate, eventually obliterating the original. But of course that’s not what any scientist proposes, as I’m sure you know. The “accretion” process is not “willy nilly”. What gets passed on is filtered, and so what gets through is what the filter allows through. Let’s say that you have a game of Chinese Whispers in which the original message is generated by some random process, and all the participants have high frequency deafness. What emerges will be as meaningless, in one sense, as what went in, but will have a characteristic pattern not present in the original. In other words, it may be equally complex, but more specified (be a specific subset of the phonemes from which the original is drawn. And it will contain information in the common or garden sense of being data from which we can gain knowledge. It will, in fact, tell us that at least some of the members of the chain suffered from high frequency deafness (or, alternatively I guess, a speech impediment). And it’s that filter that is absolutely critical. Not only that, but it doesn’t have to be designed – anything can act as a filter, letting in things with some properties and keeping out things with others, resulting in a set of somethings that are a specifiable subset of a much larger subset.
Elizabeth’s Probable Response 2: Well, it’s not just random chance. The good random errors are selected for by natural selection and bad random errors are eliminated by natural selection. So it is not pure chance. It is chance (random genetic errors) and necessity (natural selection) combined that results in the CSI.
Closer, so let’s look at your response:
Barry’s response to her Probable Response 2: What an extraordinary claim! This remarkable interaction of chance and necessity to which you allude has never been observed even over trillions of reproductive events by bacteria under intense selective pressure. What non-question begging evidence do you have for your remarkable assertion? Remember, Dawkins says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And surely you will agree that saying the staggering amounts of CSI in living things is the result of the accretion of random errors sorted by natural selection is the most extraordinary claim ever made.
Well, again assuming that you are not using CSI in Dembski’s sense but in the (in my view more sensible) sense that leaves out the question-begging Chance issue: First of all, the interaction of “chance and necessity” has frequently been observed to result in patterns that are both complex and specified. And while I’m sure I will be beaten down in flames here, I offer you genetic algorithms, in which a population of minimally functional “virtual organisms” capable only of self-replication, the prerequisite for Darwinian evolution) , breed and die in an “virtual environment” that provides various hazards that the individuals have to overcome. And as a result, the genomes of such virtual critters can become both more complex (longer than the originals) and highly specified (they belong to a small subset of patterns that affect their own longevity in that environment). So we know in principle that it works. Second, we see it working in lab and field – we see that chance and necessity (not a pair of words I like, actually, but they will do) working together in what is called “micro-evolution” in which the random mixing of genotypes (at least in sexually reproducing populations) result in phenotypic variance in ability to reproduce in the current environment, and thus to populations of better-adapted phenotypes. Thirdly, when it comes to bacteria, things are a little simpler in some senses, though more complex in others because bacteria only replicate by division, and so, with some notable exceptions (HGT), a novelty appearing in one lineage does not propagate independently of the rest of that genome. And contrary to your assertion, as you must know, in Lenski’s lab, members have indeed noted that when subjected to “intense selective pressure” novel genetic sequences that allow the bacteria to reproduce better in that environment are not only apparently randomly generated (though that is a question worth investigating) but, once generated, result in a better adapted, i.e. fitter, bacterium for that environment. However, because I know you know this, I assume you mean something slightly different: that a cell capable of Darwinian evolution itself contains CSI, so we can’t invoke Darwinian processes to account for the simplest possible organism capable of Darwinian evolution. This is possibly true (given the more relaxed definition of CSI above), but it moves the question to: how can Chance and Necessity generate an entity capable of Darwinian evolution? And we do not know that yet, although there is quite a lot of research into it.
Elizabeth’s Probable Response 3: Let’s change the subject.
Well, only because I think OOL is where your question leads. But if you want to stick with Darwinian evolution, I’m happy to continue to discuss it :) But I will confess to a brief frisson of annoyance at the suggestion that I want to avoid any subject. I don’t. It's my bane. But if you think I am doing so, come and chase me here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/ However, I do need to ration my online time a bit right now, so the conversation may be slow. But slow is good :)Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

MI:
Elizabeth has been very courteous and considerably patient considering she’s in enemy territory here, but let’s cut the St. Elizabeth crap, dong-ma?
Absolutely. And one of my faults is getting distracted by interesting discussions on the internet from stuff that needs doing IRL (you should see my kitchen sink), so I would ask, Mung, that you do not regard threads or questions I have left un-responded to as evidence that I do not have a response, merely as evidence that I am too flakey to organise myself into finding them and giving them. However, I will head back to the "Michael Denton" thread this afternoon, having taken in at least some of the interesting and relevant comments on this one, particularly by Upright BiPed. Also, as some people know, I have set up this site: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/ where you are all welcome (Chris Doyle could use your company!) to tackle me on any question you think I might be avoiding here. Contact me if you want OP rights. OK, will now respond to Barry's curious OP :) Back in a jiffy.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

Information is an idea and a command, commanding matter to start or change or stop. If it's on automatic, then it's a law. If it changes then it's not a law. The law of gravity likely doesn't stem from dictates from matter by itself. That mass attracts is arbitrary. Why doesn't mass repel? Information isn't the information's origination point. It's also not the channel on which the information travels. It's also not the rearrangement of matter itself - the end product. What it must be is that idea which travels on a channel from an originator (or automatic originator), and effects matter. So it's also not the information in a story or the type on a page or any random idea. It has to be a command which affects matter. It has to be assumed for interest's sake that it's an automatic command happening in biology, so it's a law. But once you assume that you have to assume that those laws are different and undiscovered, because there's no other solution being found anywhere. If this isn't a search for laws then it can only be a search for changing commands.lamarck_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

I have a few questions for those who claim that information exists only in the mind or for critics of biological information theory. Does biological information exist or not? Do the non-material configurations lead to a specific result or not? Is purpose evident in those configurations or not? If information exists only in the mind, and does not exist in the DNA, how could one build a case for intelligent design? If information exists only in the mind, what is it?StephenB_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Now it could be said that Ilion was simple stating his conclusion, but his definition of information is otherwise, but I looked on this thread for the words "information is" in Ilion's post and only found the one instance quoted above. Perhaps I missed others, but he seems more comfortable saying what information isn't. If this is a part of his defnition then he'll have to provide evidence for 'information existing only in the mind' - good luck with that. So he starts by assuming his conclusion, then puts himself in the position of having to defend something he has no way of defending. I have noticed that he is quick to attack people for not using their critical thinking skills though.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Where there is a question otherwise, I cannot argue that information requires a mind if information requires a mind by definition. So if you start yout argument by claiming as a defnition that "Information is an immaterial thing that exists only “within” minds" then you have assumed your conclusion.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

The OED's new definition of information runs to almost 10,000 words... The Information PalaceMung_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

The Concept of InformationMung_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, What is the conclusion that you think is being assumed? That materialism is false? That information requires a mind? I'm not clear what question it is you think is being begged.Mung_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

A one way flow of information could be radio signals sent into space. Regarding definition of information: Some differences between a rock and living things: - A rock's motion isn't motivated by machines within the body. There is no wall between the internal workings of a rock and physical universe laws. There is a wall in living bodies which enables a different source of motion - There are no rock babies begetting increasingly complex rock features. - Rocks don't consume stuff into the body, then through a cascade of machines, either add to itself or excrete. All living things do. Laws which govern living things aren't the same then, as laws which govern non-living. Darwin's assumption is that the non-living laws account for life, but that hasn't been found to work, so therefore information is the undiscovered physical laws acting on matter that create or perpetuate living things. I say perpetuate because the genome is theoretically falling apart. I think that has to be the front-loading take on it at least.lamarck_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Ilion at 87,
Now, of course, I don’t expect you to have read every port that I’ve written, nor to have remembers every single line that you may have read, but, nonetheless, how you could come up with such a total misrepresentation of what I’ve said, in just this thread, mystifies me.
No need to be mystified. You said the information is “conventionally represented” by the symbols, but is not the symbols. So the information is not the sender, it’s not the receiver, it’s not the convention and it’s not the representation. So if I hand you a piece of paper that says “the ball is red”, the information is not me, its not you, its not the English convention, it’s not the symbols on the paper, and it’s not the paper itself. A reasonable conclusion is that the information is the state of the ball, being red. May I ask a question: If you came to know something, like say ‘the ball is red’ do you then have a red ball in your head, or do you have a neural pattern that records that information, or does that information only exist on an immaterial plane?
How can you attribute materialism to me when I am denying (and showing why the denial, as applied to ‘information,’ is true) that materialism is the truth about the nature of reality?
I didn’t attribute materialism to you.
There is no information “*in*” a physical entity
It is certainly true that information does not exist as a material thing, as in, information is not listed among the atomic particles that occupy the physical universe.
the state of a physical entity is no more information than is the matter of which the physical entity is comprised.
So the state of the ball, being red, is not information about the state of the ball. And by that same token, the information you are conveying about your concept of information, is not information about your concept of information. It seems that the noun is rather out of a job.
A mind may create information about the physical entity, or about its states, but that information does not reside/exist “in” the physical entity.
Agreed, as far as conclusions go. However, there is a counter argument (in general terms) that symbolically-recorded information does not require a mind in order to come into existence. I dispute that counter claim (in slightly different terms), and to argue that point I cannot assume the conclusion that a mind is required. Instead I have to say that a mechanism is required, then explore the observable entailments of that mechanism, and argue that the mechanism is a mind.
Information is an immaterial thing that exists only “within” minds. It is created by minds; it may be shared/communicated to other minds; and any particular exists only so long as there exists a mind who knows it.
So an earthworm that happens to crawl out on a sidewalk in the sun, does not try to find the edge of the slab and return to the soil, because he does not have a mind to allow him to become informed of his predicament. And if the water treatment facility in your town uses automated control systems operated by an electro-mechanical convention. driven by computer processing of informational sgnals, then you should not expect to see water coming from your tap, because there are no minds in the valves leading up to it.
Ah! So, since you are asserting materialism, you just naturally assume that I must also?
Not only am I not asserting materialism; I am not saying you have. What you can take from this is that I don’t intend on assuming my conclusion and therefore losing every argument I engage in. I would think that taking that position would probably make me a bit testy over time, which could easily lead me into becoming belligerently intolerant of anyone who didn’t assume my conclusion as I had – as opposed to arguing for them instead. And here we find a significant distinction between our purposes. I have no interest whatsoever in trying to rewrite several hundred years of English text in order that my own personal, and peculiar, use of a noun makes sense to those to whom I am speaking. And already having no interest whatsoever, the prospects become even less motivating when I understand that my use of the term doesn’t change the dynamics of the issue one iota. So while your purpose may be to engage over the acceptance of your narrow definition, my purposes are to explore the dynamics in terms that the vast majority of human beings would recognize.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

---Ilion: "“A liar exposed” … demonstrated by his behavior." The Ilion, Mung tag team attempted to disrupt my thread a few weeks ago (as they have attempted to disrupt this thread) when Ilion accused me of "motive mongering." When I asked him to provide examples, he headed for the tall grass. Yes, that's right. Ilion, the gatekeeper of civilized discourse--whose favorite phrase is "You are a liar--and whose insulting tone infuriated one blogger on this present thread to say that he would tolerate no more bullying--was shocked, I say shocked, at my unpleasant tone.StephenB_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Mung at 82,
How is it that writing what you already believe to be the case in a diary changes what you believe to be the case?
The act of writing the diary itself is a change. Prior to the mentally-coordinated record of those thoughts on paper, that mentally-coordinated record did not exist. Writing a diary is the act of a mind. It serves no purpose to view it as a non-conscious input-output device. Minds exercise their mental faculties for their own reasons, computer don’t. Go to a writer’s convention and ask for a show of hands, “How many writers here have developed or clarified their thoughts as a result of writing them?” In other words, “Did you have to think about what you were writing when you were writing it?” I am willing to bet you’ll get an effective response of 100%. I am also willing to bet that response is a reliable indicator to not shoehorn the possible range of effects that information may have into too narrow a view.
IOW, you [and not you alone] appear to have a view of information in which information is or can be passive. I have a view of information in which information must be active. It must effect a change or it is not information.
If I believe in some-thing and by writing about this some-thing that I believe in, I am able to clarify my beliefs and tackle potential problems. In such a case, has an effect taken place? What is it that counts as a “change”? Must I stop believing in what I believe? What if I write for the sole purpose of humoring myself? Does doing something, if only because I want to, have an effect?
What you already know or believe is not information. It may be that you came to know or believe what you do because you have received some information, but once what you know or believe has been changed, the information “departs” and what is left is knowledge or belief. Even if you disagree, does that make sense?
Your comment makes sense in such terms that your words form complete sentences and your views are reflected in those sentences. But if you tell me that the moment I know 'the ball is red', that this little tidbit of information departs, then I don’t think these particular restrictions of yours on the use of the word “information” make any sense, nor do they add clarity or change the dynamics of the issue. Mung at 85
And if the effect upon the receiver is not the effect that was intended we may say that the receiver has been misinformed.
Fair enough. The receiver did not interpret the information as the author intended.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

---Mung: "And yet here you are, dredging up the past again: That is a lie. You dredged it up. I didn't start this party. You brought up the past at 46 and 47, alluding to my elliptical references on another thread as if I had purposely left out information to mislead. Elliptical phrases are designed to leave out information for the sake of brevity. I explained this to you several times, yet you persisted in your attempts to question my honesty in that context. I repeat, you started this party with a misrepresentaion. ---"Again, there is only one place in the entire book where the phrase “attribute inherent in and communicated” appears, and that is when Meyer is QUOTING the Webster’s dictionary entry." So what? The words were there and you said that they were not. Worse, you accused me of lying by pointing out that fact. That makes you the liar. ---"I did not call Meyer dishonest, that is a lie." Although Meyer made it very clear that he believes in two kinds of information, you insisted that he likely does not believe that even though he said that he did. To say that someone says what he doesn't mean is to accuse him of being dishonest. As you say, let the readers decide. Meanwhile, I wonder if we can return to something of substance. Do you even acknowledge that any such thing as biological information exists?StephenB_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @63: “If I understand Ilion correctly (correct me if I am wrong), the symbols aren’t the information; the actual state of the object is the information. Of course, I disagree with this for the obvious reason that it makes no distinction between the state of the object and the information of the object; in fact “information of the object” becomes a meaningless term if the state of the object and the information of the object are the same thing. It reduces to the object of the object, meaning that the idea that information is about something no longer makes sense.” Now, of course, I don’t expect you to have read every port that I’ve written, nor to have remembers every single line that you may have read, but, nonetheless, how you could come up with such a total misrepresentation of what I’ve said, in just this thread, mystifies me. How can you attribute materialism to me when I am denying (and showing why the denial, as applied to ‘information,’ is true) that materialism is the truth about the nature of reality? There is no information “*in*” a physical entity; the state of a physical entity is no more information than is the matter of which the physical entity is comprised. A mind may create information about the physical entity, or about its states, but that information does not reside/exist “in” the physical entity. Information is an immaterial thing that exists only “within” minds. It is created by minds; it may be shared/communicated to other minds; and any particular exists only so long as there exists a mind who knows it. Upright BiPed @63: “This whole thing goes back to the very start of mine and Dr Liddle’s discussion about what information is. We eventually described it as follows: [clip of quote] This suggest that an immaterial representation (of the state of an object) is given material status – embedded in matter or energy – and that material representation IS the information. In other words, the state of an object is represented in a separate state of matter. …” Ah! So, since you are asserting materialism, you just naturally assume that I must also?Ilion_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

"A liar exposed" ... demonstrated by his behavior a number of weeks agoIlion_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
With that, I am simply illustrating (by a drastic example) the serial observation that information, particularly recorded information (which is what we are all talking about) is tied to the purpose of having an effect.
And if the effect upon the receiver is not the effect that was intended we may say that the receiver has been misinformed. I assume you agree with that?Mung_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

The operational theory of information "Information is as information does."Mung_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

The Passive View of Information It is in this passive view of information that I find a logical absurdity. If no one has been informed, then how is it that we call this "stuff" by which no one has been informed, information? Perhaps it has the potential to inform someone, but until an act of being informed takes place, is it actually information? I guess that is the point of difference. But does it make a difference?Mung_{August 6, 2011
August
08
Aug
6
06
2011
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply