UB Sets It Out Step-By-Step

bump Mung

Incomplete Nature begins by accepting what other theories try to deny: that, although mental contents do indeed lack these material-energetic properties, they are still entirely products of physical processes and have an unprecedented kind of causal power that is unlike anything that physics and chemistry alone have so far explained. Paradoxically, it is the intrinsic incompleteness of these semiotic and teleological phenomena that is the source of their unique form of physical influence in the world.

Mung

I'm sure semiosis was predicted by Darwin, even, if Darwin is read correctly. Mung

Mung, your #1410 and #1411 above are just too rich. Just think, it only took a couple of years and about 4000 comments over a dozen threads. Now its no big deal at all. The power of scientism is to assimilate facts and deny them in the same breath. Upright BiPed

still unrefuted Mung

hola Mung

hola UBiped,Mr.Mung its been awhile since i've posted anywhere, I figure i'll try to post here again since it looks like KeithS and RBill are posting here again. I'm trudging through this post trying to catch up, interesting thus far. at the Diogenes matrix math part. D can't actually think this is a valid counter here. junkdnathewhite

Still no recorded information to be found over at TSZ. Mung

As they were setting the blog back up over at TSZ, one wonders whether they stopped to ponder the physical requirements for the transfer of recorded information. Probably not. Mung

The emergence of the discipline of semiotics has encouraged us to see natural objects and entities as signs, pointing beyond themselves, representing and communicating themselves. - McGrath, Alister E. A Fine-Tuned Universe

Mung

Mung, okie. I'se got my 10 lb sledge hammer and 1" thick sharpened stake ready, just in case. Tip can be fire-hardened if necessary. KF kairosfocus

I don't think MG has been resurrected. I think that's just Joe living in the past. :) Mung

Joe: You mean that the MG sock-puppet persona has been resurrected? Looks like we need to re-hammer the stake through the heart for it. KF kairosfocus

mathgrrl:

I’m sure his “more formal” version will address every criticism raised here.

He only addresses VALID criticisms and no one there has posted any.

I’m personally looking forward to the answer to the question “Assuming your argument is sound, how exactly does it support ID?”

Why are you waiting, it has been answered. So we don't have any valid criticisms and to top it off we have another moron who can't even follow along. Joe

Semiosis wins. Mung

The concept of information is central both to genetics and evolutionary theory. - John Maynard Smith

Mung

What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, warm breath, nor a "spark of life". It is information, words, instructions... Think of a billion discrete digital characters... If you want to understand life think about digital technology. - Richard Dawkins

Mung

It's a tasty and nutritious word salad! Mung

HT: BA77

“In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes [Bar10]. Donald E. Johnson – Programming of Life – pg.51 – 2010

Mung

The epigenome consists of chemical compounds that modify, or mark, the genome in a way that tells it what to do, where to do it and when to do it. The marks, which are not part of the DNA itself, can be passed on from cell to cell as cells divide, and from one generation to the next. - Epigenomics Fact Sheet

What natural law determines the placement of these compounds? What is the evidence that the placement of these compounds is completely random? Is there a middle ground between determined and random that could be called arbitrary? Mung

... we have begun to glimpse the multilevel complexity found in the epigenome's storehouse of information. We can see that the living cell possesses vast riches of life-enabling codes, which go far beyond the spiral thread of DNA itself. Information, in a diversity of usable forms, is lodged in virtually every corner of the cell ... The mutual integration of these systems and layers of information is a marvel to behold. The Mysterious Epigenome: What Lies Beyond DNA

Mung

Allan Miller:

Soooo … yes, semiosis is real. Consider it dealt with. Organisms make and receive ‘signs'

Mung

Cubist@TSZ

As best I can tell, Mung, nobody hereabouts thinks this ‘semiosis’ thingie isn’t real.

lol Mung

Physics, Chemistry, Information. Are there yet higher levels waiting to be discovered? Will it have to wait until our own technology advances further so that we will have the language and concepts to understand what it is we are seeing? Mung

Thank you for your charitable contribution serious123. You might have gathered from the introduction that the writing was not a formal presentation, but merely a paragraph lifted from a blog comment, which the owner of UD then numbered and presented here. The fact that it has withstood all takers for the past several months (in more than one iteration here and elsewhere) is satisfactory. I apologize for not achieving the higher standards you suggest. A more formal argument will be presented at a later date. Upright BiPed

This is the same problem in biology that has led some biologists to move to multiverse as the odds are beyond insurmountable. However the argument is just so poorly written it almost seems like the writer is not a native english speaker. In order to write a convincing argument, careful attention must be paid to using precise language, yet simple formulations. Look at any of the most famous arguments by the greats and you'll see anyone can read them. The argument needs to be reduced to its common denominator--as it sits it is like 5+2-5+6-9+7-3+8-4+2-1 =8 when it should be more like 2+2+2+2=8 serious123

Desires, like ideas, are intentional; they point to something, like signs. - Peter Kreeft

Mung

'Look, science isn’t for everyone. Finger painting may be more your speed.' 'Painting by numbers', Joe. Give RB some technical credit. It's why I call myself, Axel.... Axel

onlooker did an internet search on my name "Mung" and in it found something so objectionable that she felt she could refuse all intellectual discourse from anyone using the name "Mung." Not a rational response, to be sure. But it served her purposes. Any excuse will do. Mung

Mung, would you please stop quoting facts?! It makes it so uncomfortable for our recalcitrant materialist friends. ---- BTW, I love your #1396. What say ye, onlooker, will you take up the challenge? Eric Anderson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code

A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.

It follows that there are no real codes. That pesky I word. Mung

Today theoretical biology has genetic, developmental, and evolutionary components, the central connective themes in modern biology, but also includes relevant aspects of computational biology, semiotics, and cognition research, and extends to the naturalistic philosophy of sciences.

The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology Gerd B. Muller, Gunter P. Wagner, and Werner Callebaut, editors Mung

RB:

In short, semiotic theory is an empirical bridge to nowhere, an empirical ship in a bottle.

To you and your ilk of scientifically illiterate dogmatists, I am sure that it is. To the rest of the world who understand that it makes all the difference in the world to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose by design or some stochastic process. Even though Stonehenge is made out of stones that mother nature produced, we could never understand the structure by looking at it as something mother nature produced.

It goes nowhere, as it has no empirical purchase on only issue it purports to address.

With you at its helm I am surprised it can even stay afloat. Look, science isn't for everyone. Finger painting may be more your speed. Joe

Forget the evidence, it's the argument we can't stand. Mung

From 571 comments, and 91 days ago...

Onlooker, Your entire involvement here has been an attempt to massage over the unambiguous definitions given in the argument, in the hopes that you can make them malleable for a counter-argument. This has already been discussed here and here among other places. Unfortunately for you, your strategy has been transparent for the entire duration of your stay. You are now left with nothing but to return here and use the repetition of your attempts as an opportunity to sling more insults. It’s all you have left. As I have already pointed out, it’s a terrible way to have to protect your worldview. - – - – - – - – - – - – - Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. Protocol: An arrangement of matter that physically establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between a representation and its effect. Materially arbitrary: The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system). Evoke: The representation can evoke an effect within a system, but because it is materially arbitrary to that effect, it cannot determine what that effect will be – the effect is physically determined by the protocol alone. - – - – - – - – - – - – - These two arrangements of matter are ubiquitous in any transfer of recorded information, and they must operate as described in order to accomplish what must be accomplished – the transfer of form via a material medium. These objects are both a logical necessity and a universal empirical observation. You cannot refute them, and your unending attempts to redefine them (with added ambiguity) have grown stale, even on your own side of the fence.

Upright BiPed

...it is clear that a capacity to encode information is of decisive importance for evolution in general and evolvability in particular. - Alister E. McGrath

Mung

No time for trolling. Such a shame. onlooker, Please don't bother to return until you know the meaning of the word arbitrary. Once you've learned the meaning of the word, select an arbitrary day and time for your return. Then construct a post where the letters used are determined by physical law or by a stochastic distribution. Mung

Upright BiPed, This is a courtesy note to explain my recent lack of participation. Over the past few weeks I've been focused on work, spending time with my family on the holidays, and more work. I do not anticipate having time to devote to this discussion for the near future. Given your resistance to answering direct questions, that's unlikely to yield significantly different results from my active participation. I will note for now that your original post is still word salad, you fail to use terms consistently even on those few occasions where you have agreed on definitions, and you obviously have no interest in clarifying your position such that others can discuss it with you. It's quite clear that preventing your ideas from being exposed to scrutiny and challenge, while still claiming to have an "argument", is your actual goal. I'll check in from time to time to see if you have developed any integrity, but I'm not holding my breath. Even if you continue to hide from my questions, the 800 pound gorilla in the room remains: Granting for the sake of argument that your position is correct, how does it support ID? onlooker

The problem of semiosis isn't going away. If anything, it's going to get worse. You'd think the critics would want to deal with it sooner rather than later. Or next they'll be saying it's always been part of the Darwinian paradigm. Nothing new here. Move along. Mung

A new year, and the argument in the OP still stands unrefuted. The more we learn about life, the more semiotic it seems. The more we learn about Darwinian evolution, the more it appears to depend upon semiosis. Happy New Year! Mung

If modern science ever came up with an agreed definition of life I can just hear Reciprocating Bill... It's not based upon observations. What good is it? It's not as if we need to know what to look for when looking for signs of life "out there." Mung

..."begs the question of whether semiotic theory contributes to our understanding of the system by means of which DNA is translated in to proteins, and therefore what is required of a causal account of the emergence of that system.

The argument in the OP provides a coherent model for the transer and translation of recorded information. The argument is built on universal observation and logical necessity. It then demonstrates that this model is faithfully exemplified in the processing of genetic information. Any "causal account of the emergence of that system" will be required to demonstrate the material establishment of materially-arbitrary relationships, as such relationships are fundamental to the system by which "DNA is translated in to proteins". Knowling what is required of a proposition in order to be successful is an inseparable contribution to knowing if it was successful. Upright BiPed

Surely the system in the OP doesn't actual exist anywhere. at least not any place where's it's actually been observed. And far be it from any scientist to develop a definition for the phenomena under observation rather than merely a description. Mung

UB has characterized his opening post as presenting “observations” followed by logical conclusions. But there are no observations in the OP above.

Ah yes. Let us not forget another round of the ridiculously-strained and notoriously-idiosyncratic parsing of words. What better way to deal with observations than to simply say they don't exist? - - - - - - - - - "Observation is the most pervasive and fundamental practice of all the modern sciences, both natural and human. Its instruments include not only the naked senses but also tools such as the telescope and microscope, the questionnaire, the photographic plate, the notebook, the glassed-in beehive, and myriad other ingenious inventions designed to make the invisible visible, the evanescent permanent, the abstract concrete." - Histories of Scientific Observation (ISBN: 9780226136790) - - - - - - - - What do observation reports describe? One answer to this question assumes that observation is a perceptual process so that to observe is to look at, listen to, touch, taste, or smell something, attending to details of the resulting perceptual experience. Observers may have the good fortune to obtain useful perceptual evidence simply by noticing what's going on around them, but in many cases they must arrange and manipulate things to produce informative perceptible results. In either case, observation sentences describe perceptions or things perceived ... so much so that Carl Hempel could characterize the scientific enterprise as an attempt to predict and explain the deliverances of the senses (Hempel 1952, 653). - Stanford edu Upright BiPed

Ah, the return of the onlooker effect. Mung

Perhaps a more prepared materialist will come along and actually attack the observations themselves.

UB has characterized his opening post as presenting "observations" followed by logical conclusions. But there are no observations in the OP above. Instead, we find a definition followed by a string of assertions. Specifically, “A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system” is a definition, not an observation. Everything that follows in the OP is built one way or another upon that definition. But definitions are not self-evidently useful or correct. The usefulness of a definition is seen in the phenomena in the world that are picked out out by that definition. Some definitions call out referents and classes in a way that “carve nature at the joints.” Others don’t. Those that do can be useful conceptual tools and may become components of testable scientific hypotheses. Those that don’t have less use or are misleading. Ultimately, the scientific usefulness of a definition, and of hypotheses that may be built upon it, lies in its ability to generate testable empirical predictions. That is how theories become responsive to evidence and guide research. Semiotic theory as articulated above is neither responsive to evidence in that sense, nor capable of guiding research in a way that is scientifically useful. We know that because UB has told us so. UB’s reasoning in the OP ends with this conclusion: “The transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information.” UB has elsewhere stated, “The final conclusion of this Semiotic Argument is that a) genetic information observably demonstrates a semiotic system, and b) it therefore will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state.” It is fair to ask, “so what?” The follow-on questions are obvious (although not so easily asked), and pull for the empirical consequences of those conclusions. UB telegraphed their importance by ignoring them for months, and continues to telegraph that importance by attempting to unsay what he obviously wishes he hadn’t said, even at the expense of uttering flatly contradictory statements. Two of those questions are: - What class of mechanism does semiotic theory assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? - What class of mechanism does semiotic theory assert cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?” In response UB has affirmed: - It does not follow from semiotic theory “per se” that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) a semiotic state. - Nor does it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create a semiotic state. UB objects that in posing these questions I’m “asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do.” He is right about that. I am asking the argument to do something that demonstrates scientific value in the sense that I describe in my initial remarks above. Semiotic theory has no such value because it is not intended to have such value. No wonder UB objects. The third and perhaps most important question one could ask in evaluating the theory in a scientific context is the following: - What does a semiotic state entail that a contemporary understanding of the physicochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? This goes directly to both the scientific testability and the utility of semiotic theory. Semiotic theory might yet be found useful if unique predictions arise from it that can guide research. But semiotic theory does not generate unique entailments beyond those that follow from contemporary understanding of the physicochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins: RB:

For “It displays the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state” to improve upon the current description, testable empirical consequences must follow from that further characterization beyond those that follow from the physiochemical description. As you say, “Like, what it entailed?”

UB in response:

What you say here is flatly untrue. The argument presented above needn’t do any more than it does; it employs universal observation and logical necessity to establish what is materially necessary for the transfer of recorded information. But you want to impose on it questions that it does not answer.

Semiotic theory fails to generate testable empirical consequences. UB has told us so; to ask for testable empirical consequences is to impose on it questions that it does not answer. UB nevertheless insists that semiotic theory can be useful in the sense that the fire tetrahedron is useful. After all, he asks, am I suggesting that we should attempt to apprehend a causal mechanism without understanding what is necessary of it? That, of course, begs the question of whether semiotic theory contributes to our understanding of the system by means of which DNA is translated in to proteins, and therefore what is required of a causal account of the emergence of that system. Such begging aside, UB constructed a illustration in which I am on trial for arson and in my defense utilizes elements of the fire tetrahedron. He insisted that semiotic theory can be similarly useful, in many ways for many people, in evaluating hypotheses regarding the origin of the system by means of which DNA is translated into proteins. Accordingly, I’ve twice asked UB to provide a similar illustration of the empirical use of the entailments of semiotic theory, at the same (very low) level of detail as he supplied in his one-paragraph arson fantasy. His reply is that the question is “obtuse and ignorant.” I suspect he in fact is unable to construct such an example. But perhaps UB has an illustration up his sleeve that will enable him to rescue at least this role for semiotic theory. It is for the forgoing reasons that I argue that semiotic theory as UB articulates it is useless in a scientific context. It’s only conclusion is “it therefore will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state,” yet it fails to even broadly constrain the possible mechanisms either by requiring agency or excluding unguided processes. It generates no testable entailments. Its advocate declines to provide examples illustrating remaining possible empirical applications. In short, semiotic theory is an empirical bridge to nowhere, an empirical ship in a bottle. It goes nowhere, as it has no empirical purchase on only issue it purports to address. Reciprocating Bill

“clairvoyant hubris…” Weirdo.

You are not capable of reading my mind when I asked the questions leading to this argument. Those questions - if valuable themselves and successfully answered - establish the usfulness of the answers (i.e. not you). Feel free to sling insults, I am not the one in the materialist hat arguing that the accurately-described material conditions of a system are usless in understanding it. Perhaps a more prepared materialist will come along and actually attack the observations themselves, given that you are unable. Upright BiPed

RB,

UB: As for usefullness, you have already acknowledged that an accurate description of the system is a “crucial element” in undestanding it. RB: Of course. But not that semiotic theory usefully contributes to that description. See the difference?

Yes I do, and I think most others do as well. When you respond to critique, you deliberately stay clear of the critical point being made. It's a defense mechanism, forced upon you by the unacknowledged need to protect your position from evidence and reason. Here is the critical point you selectively avoided in your last post:

As for usefullness, you have already acknowledged that an accurate description of the system is a “crucial element” in undestanding it. You only want to equivocate on that assessment when the description of the system turns to its semiotic reality, but you have done nothing to demonstrate that the semiotic decription is inaccurate, and therefore have done nothing to demonsrtate that a semiotic description of the process of protein synthesis is useless to biology. Can you transfer and translate the information contained in DNA without an arrangement of matter to evoke a response within the system? Can you do so without a second arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its resulting effect? Is the arbitrary relationship between the first arrangement and the resulting effect a necessary component to achieve the result? Only by answering these kinds of questions can you make your claim meaningful in any way. Thus far you have been unwilling to take on this task, making your equivocation of “cruicial element” a strategic necessity, and your claim of “uselessness” a transparently obvious deception.

Upright BiPed

UB:

If you brought a thermometer to a geometry class in order to measure the degrees in an angle, you would be admonished for using the wrong tool.

Which is exactly what you've done, and what I've done. You've brought a thermometer to a geometry class - a tool devoid of usable empirical implications to bear upon a scientific question. Upon receiving the admonishment even you recommend, you spit out your medicine and assert "you've brought the wrong tool" is "a patently false claim." But it is, in fact, the wrong tool. I stated:

semiotic theory’s inability to answer the questions posed above establishes its uselessness in a scientific context. (new emphasis)

UB responded:

The question to which the argument in the OP was posed was “what are the material conditions necessary to transfer and translate recorded information”. I know this as an unassailable fact because I am the specific individual who posed the question. I am not certain what level of clairvoyant hubris you are attempting to demonstrate here, but I can assure you that this was the question asked.

Now you're simply not tracking the conversation. 'The questions posed above' to which I refer - the questions I've "imposed": - Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? - Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?” - What does a semiotic state entail that a contemporary understanding of the physicochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? - My twice repeated request that you provide an illustration of the empirical use of the entailments of semiotic theory at the same (very low) level of detail as you supplied in your one-paragraph arson fantasy. Your responses (in the last instance, your non-response) reflect semiotic theory's geometric uselessness.

As for usefullness, you have already acknowledged that an accurate description of the system is a “crucial element” in undestanding it.

Of course. But not that semiotic theory usefully contributes to that description. See the difference?

"clairvoyant hubris..."

Weirdo. Reciprocating Bill

Well this should be interesting. Your job is to argue that the inability of a thermometer to tell you how many degrees are in an angle is a valid argument against it’s ability to tell you what temperature it is.

So he's using a semiotic system to argue against the utility of semiotic systems? Mung

Bill, we're stall waiting for you to address #1342. Mung

RB at 1379,

UB: Bill deliberately reposts the same quote over and over, but he knows the falsity of the statement doesn’t turn on whether my argument does or doesn’t demonstrate a particular class of cause. The falsity of the claim is tied to Bill asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do. A thermometer cannot tell you how many degrees are in an angle. Claiming that “it can’t” is factually true. Claiming that “it can’t” as an argumentative strategy against the thermometer, is a patently false claim. UB: I want you to argue that ‘asking an argument to answer a question it was not intended to answer’ is a valid defense against the actual claim it makes. RB: By all means. In fact, by means of your own analogy

Well this should be interesting. Your job is to argue that the inability of a thermometer to tell you how many degrees are in an angle is a valid argument against it's ability to tell you what temperature it is. Lets see how you do it:

Unless you’ve brought the thermometer to a geometry class, in which case “it can’t” is both true and devastating, as it establishes the uselessness of the thermometer in that context.

Nonsense. If you brought a thermometer to a geometry class in order to measure the degrees in an angle, you would be admonished for using the wrong tool. That does nothing whatsoever to invalidate the ability of the thermometer to measure tempurature. You would be the flaw in that scenario, not the usefulness of the tool.

Which is exactly analogous to the state of affairs here, as semiotic theory’s inability to answer the questions posed above establishes its uselessness in a scientific context.

The question to which the argument in the OP was posed was “what are the material conditions necessary to transfer and translate recorded information”. I know this as an unassailable fact because I am the specific individual who posed the question. I am not certain what level of clairvoyant hubris you are attempting to demonstrate here, but I can assure you that this was the question asked. And the argument which you've been unable to refute is the direct result of that question. Your repeated attempt to impose your own questions onto that argument would simply be judged as invalid logic - if you weren't doing it as a strategic manuever. As it stands, it is a deliberate intellectual deception on your part. As for usefullness, you have already acknowledged that an accurate description of the system is a “crucial element” in undestanding it. You only want to equivocate on that assessment when the description of the system turns to its semiotic reality, but you have done nothing to demonstrate that the semiotic decription is inaccurate, and therefore have done nothing to demonsrtate that a semiotic description of the process of protein synthesis is useless to biology. Can you transfer and translate the information contained in DNA without an arrangement of matter to evoke a response within the system? Can you do so without a second arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its resulting effect? Is the arbitrary relationship between the first arrangement and the resulting effect a necessary component to achieve the result? Only by answering these kinds of questions can you make your claim meaningful in any way. Thus far you have been unwilling to take on this task, making your equivocation of “cruicial element” a strategic necessity, and your claim of “uselessness” a transparently obvious deception. Upright BiPed

And seeing that Reciprocating Bill's position, unguided evolution, is totally useless in a scientific context, he knows all about that uselessness. Unfortunately he doesn't know anything about usefulness and couldn't indentify something useful if his life depended on it. Joe

UB:

I want you to argue that ‘asking an argument to answer a question it was not intended to answer’ is a valid defense against the actual claim it makes.

By all means. In fact, by means of your own analogy: UB:

A thermometer cannot tell you how many degrees are in an angle. Claiming that “it can’t” is factually true. Claiming that “it can’t” as an argumentative strategy against the thermometer, is a patently false claim.”

Unless you've brought the thermometer to a geometry class, in which case "it can't" is both true and devastating, as it establishes the uselessness of the thermometer in that context. Which is exactly analogous to the state of affairs here, as semiotic theory's inability to answer the questions posed above establishes its uselessness in a scientific context. Reciprocating Bill

For it is an empirical scientific fact that the equivalent of measuring processes do undoubtedly take place in every living system, and this basic semiotic activity alone amply justifies the study of living systems as semiotic entities.

Mung

Its [Biosemiotics] main challenge, as we have seen, is to introduce meaning in biology, on the grounds that organic codes and processes of interpretation are fundamental components of the living world. Biosemiotics has become in this way the leading edge of the research of the fundamentals of life, and is a young exciting field on the move. - Introduction to Biosemiotics

Mung

UB: It’s apparent from your disengagement that you do not wish to argue the point presented in 1351. As is typical of rhetorical defense, your position has been defeated by the logic you ignored in contriving it. RB: This from the guy who fled precisely these questions for months, only engaged them when they were placed right under his nose, and is now defending himself by changing the definition of “true” and “false” as a way to unsay what he has already said.

Yet another lavish positioning statement! Point 1: I freely spent over two months arguing over your idiosyncratic use of the term “entailment” where you insisted that an entailment could only refer to the testable product of a thing, but not the existence of thing. This ended only when you were forced to concede that the existence of a thing quite obviously entailed the necessary conditions of its existence, and that my referring to those material conditions as entailments was entirely valid. My question to you (which you are responding to in the above quote) was not even a part of that conversation, so I hardly “fled” from it. As an aside, your positioning of my departure from TSZ as something I “fled from” misses the reality of the situation by a country mile. After two months of pointless attack, you conceded that the basis of your attack (your own idiosyncratic use of “entailment”) was in fact invalid. You did so by agreeing that my use (i.e. the standard dictionary use) of “entailment” was correct after all (i.e. June 2012 ”Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment” … I take your point.”). Your follow-on response at the time was the same as it is now - uvas agrias - and I was by no means obligated to entertain your unfortunate disposition. Referring to that as “fled” is opportunistically delusional. Point 2: No one is changing the definitions of true and false, Bill. The question to you is simple: If there is an argument which cannot be refuted with logic or evidence, is it then valid or invalid to attack that argument by deliberately and knowingly forcing it to answer a question it was never intended to answer? This was the question raised in my post 1351, where I asked you to put your position on the line and “Argue it out”.

From #1351: Bill deliberately reposts the same quote over and over, but he knows the falsity of the statement doesn’t turn on whether my argument does or doesn’t demonstrate a particular class of cause. The falsity of the claim is tied to Bill asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do. A thermometer cannot tell you how many degrees are in an angle. Claiming that “it can’t” is factually true. Claiming that “it can’t” as an argumentative strategy against the thermometer, is a patently false claim.” Argue it out.

If you are objecting to my use of the word “false” in this context, then I am certainly willing to entertain whatever suitable word you’d like to offer in its place. What word best suits a situation where someone simply cannot refute a claim made in an argument, so they insist the argument must address some other claim as a deliberate strategy against the claim they cannot refute? Would “incoherent” or “illogical” or “specious” or “phony” or “fallacious” or merely “unscientific” suit you better? I’ll let you suggest whatever word you wish, but more importantly, I want you to argue that ‘asking an argument to answer a question it was not intended to answer’ is a valid defense against the actual claim it makes. Set aside your positioning statements and sour grapes just long enough to do that. You can always go back to doing what you’ve been doing. Upright BiPed

UB:

It’s apparent from your disengagement that you do not wish to argue the point presented in 1351. As is typical of rhetorical defense, your position has been defeated by the logic you ignored in contriving it.

This from the guy who fled precisely these questions for months, only engaged them when they were placed right under his nose, and is now defending himself by changing the definition of "true" and "false" as a way to unsay what he has already said.

Bill deliberately reposts the same quote over and over, but he knows the falsity of the statement doesn’t turn on whether my argument does or doesn’t demonstrate a particular class of cause. The falsity of the claim is tied to Bill asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do. A thermometer cannot tell you how many degrees are in an angle. Claiming that “it can’t” is factually true. Claiming that “it can’t” as an argumentative strategy against the thermometer, is a patently false claim.” Argue it out.

UB has characterized his opening post as presenting observations followed by logical conclusions. But there are no observations in the OP above. Instead, we find a definition followed by a string of assertions. Specifically, "A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system" is a definition, not an observation. Everything that follows in the OP is built one way or another upon that definition. But definitions are not self-evidently useful or correct. The usefulness of a definition is seen in the phenomena in the world that are picked out out by that definition. Some definitions call out referents and classes in a way that “carve nature at the joints.” Others don’t. Those that do can be useful conceptual tools and may become components of testable scientific hypotheses. Those that don’t have less use or are misleading. Ultimately, the scientific usefulness of a definition, and of hypotheses that may be built upon it, lies in its ability to generate testable empirical predictions. That is how theories become responsive to evidence and guide research. Semiotic theory as articulated above is neither responsive to evidence in that sense, nor capable of guiding research in a way that is scientifically useful. We know that because UB has told us so. UB's reasoning in the OP ends with this conclusion: "The transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information." UB has elsewhere stated, "The final conclusion of this Semiotic Argument is that a) genetic information observably demonstrates a semiotic system, and b) it therefore will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state." It is fair to ask, "so what?" The follow-on questions are obvious (although not so easily asked), and pull for the empirical consequences of those conclusions. UB telegraphed their importance by ignoring them for months, and continues to telegraph that importance by attempting to unsay what he obviously wishes he hadn't said, even at the expense of uttering flatly contradictory statements. Two of those questions are: - What class of mechanism does semiotic theory assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? - What class of mechanism does semiotic theory assert cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?" In response UB has affirmed: - It does not follow from semiotic theory "per se" that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) a semiotic state. - Nor does it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create a semiotic state. UB objects that in posing these questions I'm "asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do." He is right about that. I am asking the argument to do something that demonstrates scientific value in the sense that I describe in my initial remarks above. Semiotic theory has no such value because it is not intended to have such value. No wonder UB objects. The third and perhaps most important question one could ask in evaluating the theory in a scientific context is the following: - What does a semiotic state entail that a contemporary understanding of the physicochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? This goes directly to both the scientific testability and the utility of semiotic theory. Semiotic theory might yet be found useful if unique predictions arise from it that can guide research. But semiotic theory does not generate unique entailments beyond those that follow from contemporary understanding of the physicochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins: RB:

For “It displays the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state” to improve upon the current description, testable empirical consequences must follow from that further characterization beyond those that follow from the physiochemical description. As you say, “Like, what it entailed?”

UB in response:

What you say here is flatly untrue. The argument presented above needn’t do any more than it does; it employs universal observation and logical necessity to establish what is materially necessary for the transfer of recorded information. But you want to impose on it questions that it does not answer.</blockquote.

Semiotic theory fails to generate testable empirical consequences. UB has told us so; to ask for testable empirical consequences is to impose on it questions that it does not answer. UB nevertheless insists that semiotic theory can be useful in the sense that the fire tetrahedron is useful. After all, he asks, am I suggesting that we should attempt to apprehend a causal mechanism without understanding what is necessary of it? That, of course, begs the question of whether semiotic theory contributes to our understanding of the system by means of which DNA is translated in to proteins, and therefore what is required of a causal account of the emergence of that system. Such begging aside, UB constructed a illustration in which I am on trial for arson and in my defense utilizes elements of the fire tetrahedron. He insisted that semiotic theory can be similarly useful, in many ways for many people, in evaluating hypotheses regarding the origin of the system by means of which DNA is translated into proteins. Accordingly, I've twice asked UB to provide a similar illustration of the empirical use of the entailments of semiotic theory, at the same (very low) level of detail as he supplied in his one-paragraph arson fantasy. His reply is that the question is "obtuse and ignorant." I suspect he in fact is unable to construct such an example. But perhaps UB has an illustration up his sleeve that will enable him to rescue at least this role for semiotic theory. It is for the forgoing reasons that I argue that semiotic theory as UB articulates it is useless in a scientific context. It's only conclusion is "it therefore will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state," yet it fails to even broadly constrain the possible mechanisms either by requiring agency or excluding unguided processes. It generates no testable entailments. Its advocate declines to provide examples illustrating remaining possible empirical applications. In short, semiotic theory is an empirical bridge to nowhere, an empirical ship in a bottle. It goes nowhere, as it has no empirical purchase on only issue it purports to address. Reciprocating Bill

UB and Mung, thanks for your replies. I always struggle with making what to me is complex into something concise, versus being long-winded and hard to follow. UB confirmed for me what I had suspected- that some number of ribosomes and associated machinery are shared with the daughter cell. One thing I am not quite clear on is if the information system properties are a necessary precursor to the synthesis of any and all of the machinery involved in the receipt/retrieval of the stored information. Not that this will clear it all up for me, but it will move me in the right direction- I realize it is extremely complicated. This has significant bearing on how I might conceptualize the introduction of information processing capabilities in cells and their precursors. I am inclined to assume that very few processes in the cell's entire life cycle can be reduced to mechanics sans the information processing apparatus. If there were a conceptual pathway for mechanical systems to handle the copying and reading of information (with whichever various mechanisms introducing information change... all irrelevant to this point), from the origin of life up until now - or even from some sort of prokaryotes until now- then I'd think common descent RM/NS advocates might have a small, tiny amount of breathing room. Because at least then you have a core part of what is doing the work of the theory being reduced to mechanical processes enveloping, or facilitating, everything else (potentially anyway). But it seems to me that even this scenario would do very little to solve the core problem: Namely, how within the confines of NDE theory (along with the generous scenario of a mechanical information storage and retrieval system (self-replication and whichever forms of mutation being key parts of the storage I'd think)), the primary information processing attributes could have originated, namely language and the information it describes existing arbitrarily with respect to the medium and without any physical necessity giving rise to it. From what I gather though, the generous scenario described is unrealistic, as even the information processing system itself exists "on top of" ***prior information and its arbitrarily descriptive language. I guess this must be one of those ways in which evolution evolved. (I know I have seen that phrase before- "evolution evolved") ***one possible loophole: I am aware that various organelles, including ribosomes, are present in the human ovum. Not that this fact does anything but make analysis of the system as a whole, over time, more complicated. I don't see it making the explanation of the arrival of information content and information processing apparatus any easier. MrMosis

You are voices in the wilderness, UDers, crying out for every valley of ignorance to be filled with understanding, and every mountain and hill of nonsense to be be brought low; and the crooked to be made straight, and the rough ways to be made smooth and erudite;... Sisyphus didn't have such a thankless task. Axel

That's what comes of trying to argue with people who worship things their own hands have made, so to speak. Pity Moses when he came down from the mountain. Axel

It was just laughable how these people were insinuating that “Semiotic Theory” was something you made up or something that was exclusive to you.

Yes, but I don't think it was "semiosis" so much that they objected to. They've been hand-waiving away semiosis for years. What they don't appreciate is having the real-world material consequences of information transfer laid out in a coherent argument they couldn't refute. Such is the material evidence. They also don't like my demonstration that an irreducibly complex core is fundamentally required in order to translate information from an information-bearing medium. Again, such is the evidence. Rebutals such as "it's just an analogy" or "when we say 'information' we know what we are talking about" are hereby refuted by observation and logic. What is left for the materialist to explain is how a formal system, requiring a fundamental coordination of materially-arbitrary objects, can come into being prior to the onset of informational organization and contraint. Upright BiPed

Eventually, the discovery of the genetic code suggested that the cell itself has a semiotic structure, and the goal of biosemiotics became the idea that all living creatures are semiotic systems. - Introduction to Biosemiotics

Now if we can just deny the genetic code... Mung

The vision of nature as an intelligible place has nourished confidence in the scientific project ever since the times of the Enlightenment. One prominent source of this belief was in Thomas Aquinas' teaching in the 13th century which strongly emphasized the inner connection between the two great books, the book of God, i.e., the Bible, and the book of nature. The will of God manifested itself in the creation as well as in the Bible and therefore reading the "Book of Nature" was a necessary supplement to reading of "The Book of God." That God in his benevolence would not have created nature as an unruly and lawless place seemed obvious to most Christian thinkers. - Jesper Hoffmeyer

Introduction to Biosemiotics: The New Biological Synthesis Not to pull this thread off topic, but perhaps it is this view that God's revelation is not restricted to the Bible alone that divides many IDists from Creationists. Mung

Mung, Thanks for your many quotes, and participation.

I'm just a toad. :) But thank you. I think you've already discerned that I have an extensive library. I wish I had a memory to match! If I can ever be of assistance in making something available do ask. It was just laughable how these people were insinuating that "Semiotic Theory" was something you made up or something that was exclusive to you. There's just no substitute for ignorance! Mung

Reciprocating Bill tried again over at TSZ:

Walker and Davies early state a definition of a Darwinian process:

Darwinian evolution applies to everything from simple software programs, molecular replicators, and memes, to systems as complex as multicellular life and even potentially the human brain – therefore spanning a gamut of phenomena ranging from artificial systems, to simple chemistry, to highly complex biology. The power of the Darwinian paradigm is precisely its capacity to unify such diverse phenomena, particularly across the tree of life – all that is required are the well-defined processes of replication with variation, and selection.

Mung, do you agree with this bolded definition?

My response:

No. For one, I don’t believe that software programs are Darwinian. Nor do I believe the processes they [Walker and Davies] refer to are well-defined, particularly with regard to the various phenomena they list.

So RB appears to make an attempt at picking up the mantle of keiths. But pretty weak so far. Mung

Another way of asking might be something like, “Where do ribosomes come from? Does their construction also necessitate the prior functioning of the information processing system, and all of its requisite parts, including the arbitrary nature of where the information content meets the physical world?”

MrMosis, In the off chance that you are still following this thread, I will offer an answer to your question. In broad terms, when a cell divides a copy of the genetic information from the parent cell is copied for the daughter cell. This includes the information for the synthesis of ribosomes and all the other necessary components of gene expression. Following that copying process, during actual cell division, ribosomes and other cellular machinery (already contained in the parent cell) are divided between the parent and daughter, giving the daughter the capacity to sustain itself from the information provided by the parent. - - - - - - - - - Mung, Thanks for your many quotes, and participation. - - - - - - - - - Alan, It's a little late in the day to be playing the "I don't understand" card. Biosemiosis is an observed fact, as surely as gravity. :) - - - - - - - - - RB, It's apparent from your disengagement that you do not wish to argue the point presented in 1351. As is typical of rhetorical defense, your position has been defeated by the logic you ignored in contriving it. Upright BiPed

MrMosis:

One first [probably elementary] question I often wonder about is: where is the information stored that prescribes the materials and methods for “manufacturing” the apparatus used for the receiving of a transmitted/stored message.

This is a great question! When speaking of cells, some people seem to believe that all requisite information is stored in the DNA, but I am not one of them. And it's because of questions like the one you ask. The how to questions. The meta questions. I think we have yet a great deal to discover yet about the informational aspects of living cells. Say the DNA contains the coding for a protein. Does it also contain the information about what that protein binds, what's it's purpose is? Does it contain the information about why that particular protein? I think not, but how can we test this? I hope you won't be offended, but I googled ribosome and this is what I got, lol: http://www.biology4kids.com/files/cell_ribos.html But it doesn't say how ribosomes are made, hehe. Nice to have you join in. Center for Molecular Biology of RNA Ribosome - Proteopedia, life in 3D And of course, NCBI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21054/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21475/ Mung

I love this thread, but have not even almost been able to keep up with it since it first started. So I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, or is discussed repeatedly and at length in the preceding 1630+ comments. (Admittedly, I am not even (yet) a novice, when it comes to any Biology, particularly a molecular sort. But I do hope to find the time to get into it all before long.) One first [probably elementary] question I often wonder about is: where is the information stored that prescribes the materials and methods for "manufacturing" the apparatus used for the receiving of a transmitted/stored message. I am trying to develop (in my own mind anyway) a conceptual framework for how, if warranted, one could distinguish between: 1) an information storage/transmission system that includes in its information content "instructions" that in a more mechanistic fashion create a machine (and possibly also "establish" a code) that will be subsequently used for the reading/receipt of the rest of the information, whose encoding is of arbitrary nature with respect to the medium and 2) more every-day information storage/transmission systems where the entirety of the way in which the information content is encoded is arbitrary with respect to the medium. There are several [hopefully accurate] presuppositions in #1 above (a novice biologist's presuppositions) that I am hoping will facilitate rather than complicate what I am trying to get at. Another way of asking might be something like, "Where do ribosomes come from? Does their construction also necessitate the prior functioning of the information processing system, and all of its requisite parts, including the arbitrary nature of where the information content meets the physical world?" Or, Where, when and how is the line drawn between the mechanistic processes related to the storage/transmission/reading/receipt of the information and the grounding of the arbitrarily arranged (non-mechanistically associated/arranged) nucleotide bits, a/k/a "information". Hope that makes some sense. MrMosis

Unparsed would seem a more accurate interpretation!

LOL! Parsed to death would be more like it! arbirarty: D1, D2, D3 D4, D5, D6 ....... ad infinitum Mung

The OP and the argument in it remain un-refuted. Alan Fox:

Unparsed would seem a more accurate interpretation!

Unparsed only to the illiterate. As for where do we go from here, ie from the design inference, well where do the archaeologists go once they have determined they are holding artifacts? Where do forensic scientists go once they have determined a crime has taken place? Where would SETI researchers go once they find a signal that matches the ET criteria? In order to understand a design you first have to determine design is present. And then once design is determined it changes the investigation. Joe

petrushka:

Information is an abstraction, the properties of stuff. Feel free to present a counterexample. Give me an instance of information that is free of matter or energy.

lol. You want me to transfer information in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter? So you want me to prove Upright BiPed wrong. Sorry, I don't feel like letting you all off the hook like that. :) Basically, you're agreeing with him. Do you know that? Mung

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1495&cpage=1#comment-18935 Mung

Man, there are some serious failures in basic comprehension and reasoning over at TSZ. Upright BiPed:

2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

petrushka:

So yes, information is always instantiated in matter or energy. I thought the ID side had reached agreement on this.

First, Upright BiPed did not say that information is always instantiated in matter or energy. What he said was, if you want to transfer information in a material universe, information requires a material representation. And given that the representation is not the thing being represented, it does not follow that because the transfer of information in a material universe requires a material representation that information is just the result of matter and energy alone. So my initial questions still stand: Information – is that one of those things that cannot be empirically detected? Is information just the result of matter and energy alone?

Mung

Theses on Biosemiotics: Prolegomena to a Theoretical Biology

II. Biology is incomplete as a science in the absence of explicit semiotic grounding The neodarwinian biology as practiced all over the world has prescinded (i.e., abstracted from necessary contextual support) an asemiotic conception of life as mere molecular chemistry, and yet at the same time is dependent on unanalyzed semiotic assumptions.

- Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs Mung

Seriously, Alan, why does he need to go anywhere?

He doesn't of course!

The OP and the argument in it remain un-refuted.

Unparsed would seem a more accurate interpretation!

He can stand here and wait, and wait, and wait, just as he has been, until another of you jokers shows up and makes extravagant claims that they have no hope of backing up (e.g., Elizabeth Liddle).

He can indeed! What would the point be?

Just the entertainment value alone is worth the wait.

Right. I thought there was some real point involved. Silly me!

But did you even bother to read the above linked?

No.

The scientific community is beginning to catch on. No need for Upright BiPed to go anywhere.

I await the press release!

Meanwhile, your side falls further and further behind. You’re left denying the facts in the vain hope no one will notice that you’re now a member of a cult.

I'm a member of one or two things but they wouldn't have me in the local cult. I am just a curious observer of the fortunes of "Intelligent Design" advocates. ID success is not linked to the progress of alternative philosophies. Alan Fox

Seriously, Alan, why does he need to go anywhere? The OP and the argument in it remain un-refuted. He can stand here and wait, and wait, and wait, just as he has been, until another of you jokers shows up and makes extravagant claims that they have no hope of backing up (e.g., Elizabeth Liddle). Just the entertainment value alone is worth the wait. But did you even bother to read the above linked? The scientific community is beginning to catch on. No need for Upright BiPed to go anywhere. Meanwhile, your side falls further and further behind. You're left denying the facts in the vain hope no one will notice that you're now a member of a cult. Mung

Seriously, Upright Biped, I'm curious. Where do you go from here? Alan Fox

Davies and Walker explain that life cannot be all analog, nor can it be all digital. Analog life would not survive geological time, they argue, because it lacks a method to encode adaptations to change. Digital-only life fails from the starting gate, though, because it cannot deal with biological function. That's because the information in life as we know it is stored in the system as a whole, not just in the genetic macromolecules: function involves all the networks of analog molecules, their feedback loops, and their ability to modify DNA itself. The hybrid "RNA World" scenario with its half-genetic, half-metabolic ribozymes is flawed because "there would be no way to physically decouple information and control from the hardware it operates on, resulting in unreliable information protocols due to noisy information channels." Indeed, "that mono-molecular systems are divided from known life by a logical and organizational chasm that cannot be crossed by mere complexification of passive hardware." For these reasons, Davies and Walker believe life had to be "'bimolecular' from the start," with analog and digital components separated, working together as a system.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/assessing_the_a067541.html Mung

Reciprocating Bill, I have to agree with Eric. I'd really love to see Upright BiPed caught in a compromising position, I really can't stand the guy (or girl). But you cutting and pasting statements and then saying "see, therefore something else must be true," I find that hard to follow. Are you making claims about his position, or about claims he's made about your position, or what? Mung

Mung, thanks. My bad, I was scrolling too quickly. I'm sure glad we don't have deception on either side now! :) ----- RB, I realize I'm tangential to your discussion with UB, but #1342 seeks to cut to the chase and understand what your underlying substantive argument is. Would you be so kind as to briefly identify for the rest of us which category you are in? Eric Anderson

Bill, More rhetoric? This text is from the same post: Bill deliberately reposts the same quote over and over, but he knows the falsity of the statement doesn’t turn on whether my argument does or doesn’t demonstrate a particular class of cause. The falsity of the claim is tied to Bill asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do. A thermometer cannot tell you how many degrees are in an angle. Claiming that “it can’t” is factually true. Claiming that “it can’t” as an argumentative strategy against the thermometer, is a patently false claim." Argue it out. Upright BiPed

UB:

I am so deeply thankful that my intellectual life is not dependent on rhetorical device and deception.

You omitted self-deception. Above you state that my argument was founded on a falsehood - in fact, a "patent falsehood." I forthwith reproduced your earlier explicit, unequivocal endorsement of those same statements. And your rationalization?

Your claim is not patently false because my argument does not require or exclude a particular class of causation. [Translation: It is not false because it is false.] It is patently false because of what you are doing with it

We have a new dictionary entry from Grima Wormtongue: "False statement: A statement that is true, but I don't like what you do with it." Welcome to intellectual Chapter 7, UB. Reciprocating Bill

I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting to see a refutation. Mung

So ... What next, Upright Biped? Alan Fox

Eric, I think you were quoting Upright BiPed. Mung

RB:

I am so deeply thankful that my intellectual life is not dependent on rhetorical device and deception. That is all this exchange has been about.

Excellent. So would you mind answering my question in 1342? (No rhetorical devices or deceptions needed.) Eric Anderson

Eric at 1342, You are correct that this conversation has narrowed to pointless back and forth. The current exchange doesn’t even impact the issues in the OP. This is just a part of the rhetorical game Bill is playing, which I have felt obligated to respond to. However, if you are referring to RB’s set-up in 1341 regarding the statement of a “patently false claim”, I did not misspeak. Bill deliberately reposts the same quote over and over, but he knows the falsity of the statement doesn’t turn on whether my argument does or doesn’t demonstrate a particular class of cause. The falsity of the claim is tied to Bill asking the argument to do something it was not intended to do. A thermometer cannot tell you how many degrees are in an angle. Claiming that “it can’t” is factually true. Claiming that “it can’t” as an argumentative strategy against the thermometer, is a patently false claim. Bill at 1341, “…you also falsely claim that it [semiosis] ”neither requires a nor excludes a particular kind of causation”. And on the basis of this patently false claim…” Your claim is not patently false because my argument does not require or exclude a particular class of causation. It is patently false because of what you are doing with it. My argument was not designed to require or exclude a particular class of causation; it was designed to inventory the material requirements of that causation. You know this because I’ve repeatedly told you so. Upright BiPed

Q: Does semiotic theory per se [the fire tetrahedron] assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state [set a fire]? A: "No" Q: Conversely, does semiotic theory per se [the fire tetrahedron] assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state [set a fire]? A: "No" Q: If neither, how can the theory itself can be said to constrain the set of possible causal mechanisms? Would it not be silent on causation? A: (given 333 comments ago) The tetrahedron defines without exception what is required for a fire to occur, but does not identify who or what may have caused the fire. Yet, if a fuel and heat source (specific material conditions) are required, then we know that the cause of that fire will have had to provide those requirements if they are not locally accounted for otherwise. Refutation of this obvious fact: zip Acknowledgement of this fact: zip Rhetorical maneuvering: non-stop Upright BiPed

RB: Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? UB: "No" RB: Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? UB: "No" RB: If neither, how can the theory itself can be said to constrain the set of possible causal mechanisms? Would it not be silent on causation? UB: What else constrains the evaluation of a “set of possible causal mechanisms” if not what is necessary for them to accomplish? Are you suggesting that we should attempt to apprehend a causal mechanism without understanding what is necessary? Are you suggesting that all causal mechanisms are equal? If these are not what you are suggesting, then knowing ‘what is necessary’ helps to illuminate any proposition to follow. Do you disagree? RB: Of course a description of the system we wish to understand is a crucial element in the search for causes. The question is, does adding “the system is semiotic” as defined in semiotic theory to that description add anything of value to our current physiochemical understanding? UB: It tells us that the process has a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated within it which is not only necessary for it to operate, but is also the specific source of the function it produces. And as you say, this is a “crucial element” if we wish to understand the system as it actually exist. RB’s refutation? (zip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I am so deeply thankful that my intellectual life is not dependent on rhetorical device and deception. That is all this exchange has been about. It was never about the prize of scientific truth, supportable warrant, or validity. If I was debating an opponent who substantiated the notion that X was the result of Y, I would be literally embarrassed to argue on as I ignored that notion. I simply wouldn't do it, and I think there are many UD contributors that feel that same way. Bill does not suffer from such scruples, and his prize is otherwise. His hilarious claim that I quote-mined him is a perfect example. He repeats over and over that I have contradicted myself with regard to excluding living agents, while he deceptively ignores the distinction pointed out to him hundreds of post ago. And here yet again, he repeats over and over my one-word answers of "no" to his questions regarding causation, while he deceptively ignores the exchange that followed those answers. Literally, what does one do when, despite one's best attempts at encouraging a legitimate debate, it becomes obvious that the only prize on the table is anathema to that end. Upright BiPed

RB: There seems to be a lot of 'he said - she said' taking place on the thread lately which is sucking up quite a bit of energy. Let's assume, just for sake of discussion, that UB misspoke at some point in the thread and didn't use the right terminology. Let's further assume that you have caught UB misspeaking and have demonstrated this fact. Fine. What is your primary substantive issue with the semiotic idea being laid out? That: (i) the existence of a semiotic system doesn't allow a deduction of design, (ii) the existence of a semiotic system doesn't allow an inference of design, (iii) the inference to design is countered by affirmative evidence that a semiotic system can be built by purely materialistic processes, or (iv) we have no way of knowing anything about the design and can't say one way or the other? Amidst all the back-and-forth accusations of misquotes and misstatements, I'm just trying to understand which position you are taking . . . Eric Anderson

UB:

this comment does not address the issue at hand.

What it does do is much more interesting and consequential than what it doesn't. And all I need do is repost, without comment: UB now:

…you also falsely claim that it [semiosis] ”neither requires a nor excludes a particular kind of causation”. And on the basis of this patently false claim…

UB ~four weeks ago:

RB: "Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?" UB: "No." RB: "Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?" UB: "No."

More anon... Reciprocating Bill

RB,

How, for God’s sake, do you shave?

As before, in the previously noted example of your refusal to address the standing distinction which resolved your claim of a contradiction, this comment does not address the issue at hand. A simple question: If the fire tetrahedron does not indentify a specific cause of a fire, but tells you (without exception) the mechanics of the fire, and by extension tells you what is materially required from that cause, is it then silent on causation? From #1008: (329 comments gao)

As has already been explained via the example of the fire tetrahedron; the tetrahedron defines (without exception) what is required for a fire to occur, but does not identify who or what may have caused the fire. Yet, if a fuel and heat source (specific material conditions) are required, then we know that the cause of that fire will have had to provide those requirements if they are not locally accounted for otherwise. This is non-controversial.

From #1088 (249 comments ago)

The relevance of the semiotic argument has already been explained to you using the very similar example of the “fire tetrahedron”. I’ll give it to you again. The older “fire triangle” stated that fire required three material conditions (i.e. a heat source, an oxidizer, and a fuel) as the necessary ingredients of a fire. But as it turns out, the mere existence of those three ingredients by themselves were not sufficient to indicate the presence of fire. What was required was the addition of a unique identifying process. The fire tetrahedron closed that loop by adding the specific process of combustion to the three material conditions; which when present, was sufficient to indicate the presence of fire. information (i.e. a material representation, a material protocol, and a materially-arbitrary relationship between the representation and its effect). The mere presence of these three conditions cannot confirm the existence of recorded information transfer, yet with the addition of a unique identifying process, they can. That unique identifying process is the production of unambiguous function, as seen throughout the living kingdom. Together, these three material conditions in the presence of this unique identifying process can confirm the transfer of recorded information. While the concept of the “fire tetrahedron” can confirm the existence of a fire, it cannot identify who or what started the fire (i.e. its origin). Likewise, the four entailments listed in the semiotic argument can confirm the transfer of recorded information; but it cannot tell you the origin of the system. However, (contrary to your assertion) in neither of these cases is the knowledge of these systems suddenly “silent” on causation. As stated earlier in this thread regarding the tetrahedron and a confirmed instance of a fire; if a fire investigator knows that a fuel and heat source (i.e. specific material conditions) are required for fire, then that investigator will know that the cause of that fire will have had to provide those specific requirements if they are not locally accounted for otherwise. If they can be accounted for, then the investigator will have no reason to search further in order to identify them. So to say that the fire tetrahedron is “silent” on causation is simply not true. The knowledge of the tetrahedron is the backbone of the investigation. The semiotic argument plays an identical role in a confirmed instance of information transfer; it provides a model of the material conditions which must be met (in order to explain what must be explained). Specifically regarding DNA processing (even if we set aside the question of a source of the material components involved) we can observe the system in operation. We can account for the material conditions present in the representations and protocols, and we observe the unambiguous function as a result of the system. However, we have no mechanism to account for the arbitrary relationship which exists between the representations and their effects, nor for the coordination of the protocols in specifying those effects. So unless you can document something to the general effect that “under unguided condition X, and in the presence of A, B, and C, a relationship will form between A and C mediated by B”, then it is completely obtuse and ignorant to suggest that the semiotic argument has nothing interesting to say (“devoid of relevance”) regarding causation.

From #1125: (212 commets ago)

You are so determined to characterize the semiotic argument as meaningless that apparently you will say anything at all. It. But no matter how you’d like to spin it, it is hardly meaningless to have it demonstrated that a physiochemically-inert relationship is the proximate source of life on Earth. You’ve led off with the unsustainable idea that the semiotic argument is silent on causation, and when shown that it is not, you hadn’t the good sense to just leave it alone, but instead returned with your indefensible screed at 1119. Its as if I told you that since the fire tetrahedron cannot determine who or what set a fire, then rubbing two cubes of ice together is suddenly back in play. Give it a rest Bill. When the horse is dead, get off.

From #1255: (82 comments ago)

The argument presented above needn’t do any more than it does; it employs universal observation and logical necessity to establish what is materially necessary for the transfer of recorded information. But you want to impose on it questions that it does not answer. You do this for the express purpose that you might grant yourself the luxury of ignoring it. It is a deliberate contrivance on your part, supporting a deliberate act of denial. The fire tetrahedron cannot tell you if a fire was set by any particular source, it can only tell you what is materially necessary for a fire to be confirmed. But no matter what the source of the fire, the fire tetrahedron will always remain true. It does not become useless to the investigator, notwithstanding your lack of discipline. Clearly, it is not what the argument ‘does not say’ that you wish to ignore, it’s what it does say.

Upright BiPed

How, for God’s sake, do you shave?

That's a non sequitur. But I'm going to guess that understanding the principles of right reason allows one to shave while ignorance of the principles of right reason also allows one to shave. So it doesn't appear to be about shaving. Mung

How, for God’s sake, do you shave?

Which area? Mung

UB now:

…you also falsely claim that it [semiosis] ”neither requires a nor excludes a particular kind of causation”. And on the basis of this patently false claim…

UB then: RB:

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

RB:

Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

How, for God's sake, do you shave? Reciprocating Bill

Meanwhile:

A first cell is a minimal evolutionary agent; a naked replicator, or chained set of replicators, is not.

The Major Transitions in Evolution Revisited p 102 Mung

Reciprocating Bill at 1334, POINT ONE (a modest inconvenience)

For the record: Does RB claim that living agency must be excluded as a cause?

As a cause of what, Bill? The cause of what effect, exactly? As a potential cause of the semiosis found in living cells? Is that the effect you are alluding to? The position you’ve argued for is that semiosis is a false observation which adds nothing ”of value to our current physiochemical understanding” because you also falsely claim that it ”neither requires a nor excludes a particular kind of causation”. And on the basis of this patently false claim, you see no reason for “adding semiosis to the description we already have” and therefore it can be summarily excluded from the observations. Is that the effect you are speaking of? If so, then you are attempting to clarify your position on a cause for the effect that you do not even believe exists. This conundrum has been forced upon you by your inability to refute the observations of the effect itself (which is the topic of this conversation). In any case, you are certainly welcome to carry on with both positions. Do you want to exclude agent involvement in origins? You say "Of course not", you just want to exclude any evidence for it. But you can't make that case. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - POINT TWO (an intractable problem) In 1334 you provide summaries of the post you’ve made:

Post #1286 (290 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it) I do not exclude living agency. Post # 1307 (311 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it). Your statements are contradictory. It is YOUR claim that excludes living agency. Post #1310 (314 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it). Your statements are contradictory. It is YOUR claim that excludes living agency. Post #1310 (314 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it). I do not exclude living agency. Post #1317 (321 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it). It is YOUR contradictory claim that excludes living agency. Post #1319 (323 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it). I do not exclude living agency. Post 1321 (325 comments after you asked for a clarification and received it). I do not exclude living agency. Your statements are contradictory. It is YOUR claim that excludes living agency.

It does not go un-noticed that there was a clarification asked for, and given. In 963 you asked two questions, and in 964 you received two answers. One answer was about agency causes and the other was about material causes. You contrasted the answer given about material causes with the answer given about agency causes. You then immediately (996) asked about a supposed contradiction between the two. You were given an answer to that supposed contradiction in the form of a valid distinction between the two. You could not refute this distinction, yet this distinction fully resolves the supposed contradiction you created by conflating the two causes (without this distinction in place). One can imagine that this is the point of asking for a clarification in the first place. If that is true, then one cannot act as though the clarification was not given. It was, and it stands. Now (having completely lost at all attempts to refute/impugn/falsify the argument at the top if this page) you wish to forget about any of that, and simply assert (repeatedly, 300 comments later) that you have identified a contradiction. You haven’t. The distinction still exists. You did not empty it. You cannot empty it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - POINT THREE (freely recorded here on UD without the slightest excuse of moderation) From the OP, If you disagree with UB’s conclusion, please demonstrate how his argument is either invalid (as a matter of logic the conclusion does not follow from the premises) or unsound (one or more of the premises are false). Good luck (you’re going to need it). You have been entirely unable to meet this challenge. Upright BiPed

For the record: Does RB claim that living agency must be excluded as a cause? Or does he identify a contradiction among UB's claims that has that result? Let us see. 996:

Also, within your framework, do not living agents (displaying massive organization) require recorded information to function? Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function? I see a short circuit between your answer to my first question and your answer to my second.

Your statements are contradictory. 1286:

My actual belief is that life has arisen at many times/places in the universe, and that the suite of adaptations we describe as “agency” has arisen somewhat less often (a frequency that dramatically turns on one’s definition of “agency”). It is certainly within the realm of possibility that life on earth was “seeded.”

I do not exclude living agency. 1307:

In one breath you stated that by “universal observation” semiotic states arise only from living agents. In the next you excluded “any process” (my emphasis) that requires recorded information in order to function. Last I looked, it was your claim that all living agents require recorded information in order to function. That obvious contradiction was the basis of my objection, twice clearly stated.

Your statements are contradictory. It is YOUR claim that excludes living agency. 1310:

Upon noting that you excluded “any process that requires recorded information” (which I took to mean, “any process that requires recorded information”), I meant that YOU have thereby excluded living agents as the cause of recorded information on earth, because living agency requires recorded information. Claiming both is a flat contradiction.

Your statements are contradictory. It is YOUR claim that excludes living agency. 1310:

As stated above, it happens to be my belief (no more than an assumption, I freely admit) that life has likely arisen in many places and times in this universe, agency somewhat less often (depending upon one’s definition of agency).

I do not exclude living agency. 1317:

What I am telling you is that your exclusion of “ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function” excludes living agents as the origin of recorded information, because agents require recorded information to function.

It is YOUR contradictory claim that excludes living agency.

I don’t really care about the logical fate of your ETs.

I do not exclude living agency. 1319:

I otherwise don’t care about the logical fate of your ETs.

I do not exclude living agency. 1321:

[agency as an explanation is] perfectly compatible with my own assumptions – I’ve never said otherwise. What it contradicts is YOUR exclusion of “ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function.” The contradiction is internal to your own claims and has nothing to do with my homely beliefs on the matter.

I do not exclude living agency. Your statements are contradictory. It is YOUR claim that excludes living agency. Does UB grasp the above? 1322

If agency has “arisen in many places and times in this universe”, then your call to summarily exclude them as a possible source of the semiosis on earth is illogical

He does not. Reciprocating Bill

Quotemine! I should have thought of that! Grrr... Mung

UB quotes RB's clarion call for the exclusion of agency!

“Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function?”

Why not reproduce the entire passage:

Also, within your framework, do not living agents (displaying massive organization) require recorded information to function? Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function? I see a short circuit between your answer to my first question and your answer to my second.

Not a call to exclude agents. A call for better wiring. Quotemine much? Reciprocating Bill

I suspect you are correct Mung. There appears to be no bottom. Upright BiPed

lol I can't wait for the response to that one. I can hear it now ... But that wasn't a call for their exclusion, just a request for a reason they ought not be excluded. [Forget about the possibility life arose elsewhere and is responsible for life here, and the infinite regress that calls out for!] Mung

RB at 1324

Another strangely disconnected comment. I’ve issued no call to exclude them.

"Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function?" "Do not all living agents require recorded information to function? If so, why aren’t they excluded on that ground?" etc Upright BiPed

Above quotes are from Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs. The claims or insinuations by certain people that "semiotic theory" is something made up by Upright BiPed are due to dishonesty or ignorance (or both). But it's what we've come to expect. Mung

Our path in this search to understand life processes has led us, as biologists, to a semiotic view. Life processes are not only significant for the organisms they involve. Signification, meaning, interpretation and information are not just concepts used and constructed by humans for describing such processes. We conclude that life processes themselves, by their very nature, are meaning-making, informational processes, that is, sign processes (semioses), and thus can fruitfully be understaood within a semiotic perspective.

...a theory of semiosis, contemporarily called semiotics, would include the entire sphere of biology (to be precise - that part of biology which deals with living systems.) Semiosis is the sign process - the fundamental process that carries meaning and in which meaning is created.

This investigation into the semiotic nature of living systems has taken a long time to emerge, since it poses a challenge to many of the prevailing ontological assumptions of both the natural and the human sciences. ...semiotics came onto the scene with it's full meaning, sense, and power only once we started to investigate how life actually works, only with the impetus to understand the building blocks of life.

Thus, semiotics is not only a matter of description, it is also primarily a matter of mechanisms - of semiotic mechanisms. ...Accordingly, biosemiotics is biology as a sign systems study, or, in other words, a study of semiosis in living nature. "Biosemiotics is the name of an interdisciplinary scientific project that is based on the recognition that life is fundamentally grounded in semiotic processes" (Hoffmeyer).

Semiosis is, in fact, the instrument which assures the maintenance of the steady state of any living entity...

Mung

It’s a hard row to hoe.

But what's a poor farmer to do when he's killed the mule? Mung

Hi Bill. Should we expect to ever see even an attempt at a refutation of the OP from you? Maybe for Christmas? Please? Mung

UB:

If agency has “arisen in many places and times in this universe”, then your call to summarily exclude them as a possible source of the semiosis on earth is illogical… unless you have established it as somehow impossible, or simply assume it.

Another strangely disconnected comment. I've issued no call to exclude them. It is YOUR claim that observation justifies the exclusion of "ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function" that does so. The contradiction is internal to your argument, and doesn't arise in any way from my beliefs on the matter. There is no requirement that my assertions align with YOUR claims to remain logical. (In fact…) Reciprocating Bill

Oh, and Bill, it has not gone un-noticed that you have yet to demonstrate that any of the observations given in the OP are false, or that the conclusions do not logically follow from those observations. Its a rather glaring ommission from the good work you're doing here. Upright BiPed

As above, 1) that statement does not participate this particular of your contradictions. Indeed, I’ve never commented upon it.

The statement above provides the context of my comment. You want to take my answer about material processes and apply it to an agent, and you immediately seized upon this by asking me very specifically about a supposed contradiction. In that clarification you were given a perfectly valid distinction between the two which logically demonstrates why you cannot conflate them. For you to establish a contradiction from this, you'll need to empty that valid distinction, which you cannot do.

It’s perfectly compatible with my own assumptions

If agency has "arisen in many places and times in this universe", then your call to summarily exclude them as a possible source of the semiosis on earth is illogical... unless you have established it as somehow impossible, or simply assume it. Upright BiPed

UB:

May I please act like “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial conditions” sounded like you were talking about agency to me...

As above, 1) that statement does not participate this particular of your contradictions. Indeed, I've never commented upon it. Rather, it is your exclusion of "ANY process that requires recorded information." 2) agency enters by means of the statement, “semiotic states rise only (or are in operation only) from massive organization (i.e. living agents)." The contradiction arises when you try to simultaneously attribute the origination of the TRI to ETs while excluding ANY process that requires recorded information. Within your framework, ETs require recorded information.

I bet no one notices that since I believe that other agents arose at different times in this 14byo universe, one of them could explain the semiosis we find on earth, so my claim that we should exclude them as an ‘impossibility’ is logically incoherent with my own words, and I also bet they’ll forget this incoherence was pointed out to time 30 days ago.

It's perfectly compatible with my own assumptions - I've never said otherwise. What it contradicts is YOUR exclusion of "ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function.” The contradiction is internal to your own claims and has nothing to do with my homely beliefs on the matter. I would have thought none of this difficult to understand. Reciprocating Bill

RB,

Yes, the backdown is simple

You mean: May I please act like “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial conditions” sounded like you were talking about agency to me, and further, can I pretend that I didn't immediately asked you specifically about that and when you said "no" and gave me a perfectly coherent reason, can I just pretend that you said "yes" instead?

your recent ascription to me of imaginary metaphysical preconceptions was 1) weirdly disconnected from the reality of the exchange and 2) with respect to the actual content of my “metaphysics,” out to lunch.

You mean: I bet no one notices that since I believe that other agents arose at different times in this 14byo universe, one of them could explain the semiosis we find on earth, so my claim that we should exclude them as an 'impossibility' is logically incoherent with my own words, and I also bet they'll forget this incoherence was pointed out to me 30 days ago. Upright BiPed

Yet another slab of empty metacommentary.

I suspect you’ll do anything, even offer me the opportunity to back down.

Yes, the backdown is simple: If you didn’t really mean ANY process, just say so, rather than generating more twisty little passages, all alike. That makes the contradiction evaporate. I otherwise don't care about the logical fate of your ETs - which is the reason I didn't pursue the topic further at the time. However, I have underscored the basis of my original question (namely, the above contradiction) in order to make clear to the person who is still following this discussion that your recent ascription to me of imaginary metaphysical preconceptions was 1) weirdly disconnected from the reality of the exchange and 2) with respect to the actual content of my "metaphysics," out to lunch. Reciprocating Bill

RB in 1317,

Do you see those words “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial conditions”? Does that sound like I was speaking about “agency”?

This statement does not enter into the contradiction I have identified. The proposition that does is your exclusion of “ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function” (my emphasis).

Yes Bill, the distinction you want to “identify” is between those causes that do and do not require semiosis in order to exist. But that wasn’t the question you asked. The distinction you now wish to ignore is the one you were asking about. It was the same one that I answered. Here’s the problem in a nutshell, Bill, you asked a question and got an answer. Then immediately over the course of three posts (996, 1003, 1011) you asked for a clarification to that answer, and you were given one which you could no longer argue with. So then you dropped it. Now you’ve circled back as if none of that had happened, and you want to claim a contradiction based specifically on the clarification you couldn’t argue with. I can only presume you’ve become frustrated and simply assumed that no one would notice this. You very specifically asked me for my justification in not excluding a possible agent origin of semiosis on earth because such an agent would require semiosis itself (just as Darwinian evolution would). By using the term “specifically asked” I mean to say that you asked me directly about this specific individual issue after you had heard my original answer to your question. But I highlighted a valid distinction between these two propositions, and I told you that it does not follow that such a proposed agent mechanism should be excluded because it would not require the semiosis on Earth (unlike the Darwinian process which is entirely dependent upon it). This is a perfectly logical position to take, and it is one which you did not engage further. Having any integrity whatsoever, you cannot ask for a specific clarification, then immediately get one, then ignore it, and then repeat (over and over) the words you asked to be clarified, all in the pretense that you never asked the question or heard the answer. And to make matters even worse, it remains a fact that the clarification given to you (i.e. the valid distinction between the two propositions) is entirely supported by reason (IOW, the “contradiction” is consequently resolved). It’s a hard row to hoe. Now you’ve gone and made your position even worse by not having the sense to just leave it alone. With your newly explained belief that life has likely risen several times in several places within the universe, you’ve not only demonstrated my point about the incoherence in your position, but in the process you’ve completely blown up your original “contradiction” claim by demonstrating the validity of the very clarification you’re trying to ignore. What a sad shape to find yourself in. I fully understand that you’d now like to portray a stiff upper lip and position my response as “special pleading”, but there is no amount of that tactic which can change the fact that your own beliefs demonstrate the valid distinction pointed out to you. When someone wants to position a logically valid distinction as special pleading, you can rest assured they’re obfuscating against that validity. One might wonder when you will have had enough of losing this argument. You will remember back in June when you were forced to concede your first round of objections. I thanked you for the conversation and was willing to leave it at that. Since then you’ve done nothing but dig a hole and stand in it. I suspect you’ll do anything, even offer me the opportunity to back down. Upright BiPed

UB:

Do you see those words “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial conditions”? Does that sound like I was speaking about “agency”?

This statement does not enter into the contradiction I have identified. The proposition that does is your exclusion of "ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function" (my emphasis). "Agency" enters by means of the statement, "semiotic states rise only (or are in operation only) from massive organization (i.e. living agents)," the second term of the contradiction. The contradiction arises when you try to simultaneously attribute the origination of the TRI to ETs while excluding ANY process that requires recorded information. Within your framework, ETs require recorded information.

Now let’s return to the current frame of reference, where you are telling me I must ignore the universal observation that all forms of semiosis stem from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. an agent) because an agent would require semiosis itself.

What I am telling you is that your exclusion of "ANY process that requires recorded information in order to function" excludes living agents as the origin of recorded information, because agents require recorded information to function. Backflips of special pleading follow: "I was addressing any speculated material process being the source of the semiosis in the genome on a pre-biotic earth." But "ANY process that requires the TRI in order to function" would include processes beyond those in a prebiotic earth - such as your imagined ETs. The backdown is simple: If you didn't really mean ANY process, just say so. That makes the contradiction evaporate. I don't really care about the logical fate of your ETs. What I do care to point out is that my objection to your "universal observations" arose not from metaphysical presuppositions you mistakenly ascribe to me, but rather from the fact that, prior to special pleadings and qualifications, the conclusions drawn from your "universal observations" contradict one another.

the only propositions I must logically eliminate are …b) the process of Darwinian evolution (because it’s a material process that requires semiosis in order to function, and therefore cannot be the source of that semiosis).

However, per 1286 above we have already established that it is your position that simpler Darwinian systems "may or may not be possible." From which it follows that you don’t know whether a simpler Darwinian system is possible. From which it further follows that so called “universal observation and logical necessity,” even as you construe them, leave open the question of whether simpler Darwinian systems are possible. Reciprocating Bill

Well, Upright BiPed, you need to just pick up your little IC system and go back to whatever star system you came from.

And finally let us say that they seeded Earth.

Indeed. They had a theory that permitted them to predict where to find planets capable of sustaining life based upon their understanding of the requirements for a living system. Meanwhile, we can't even define life. Stuck forever in the mud. Mung

RB,

As stated above, it happens to be my belief (no more than an assumption, I freely admit) that life has likely arisen in many places and times in this universe, agency somewhat less often (depending upon one’s definition of agency). Your ascription to me of an assumed conclusion not only bears zero resemblance to my actual objection, it ascribes to me an assumption opposite to that which I actually assume.

No resemblance? Really? Let’s play it out and see. Let us say that you are correct. Life began several times in the universe. And let us say that in one of those instances, Life beat us to higher mathematical intelligence by a few million years, after all, there are billions to go around. Let us then say that this intelligence developed incredible technologies (the kind we may have in a million or so years), as well as interstellar travel, and so on. And let us say they went off to seed prized planets with great potential for life. And finally let us say that they seeded Earth. They, indeed, are the source of the semiosis we have now found in the genomes of every living thing on this planet. Now let’s return to the current frame of reference, where you are telling me I must ignore the universal observation that all forms of semiosis stem from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. an agent) because an agent would require semiosis itself. And in return I tell you that I needn’t do any such thing because the only propositions I must logically eliminate are a) any semiotic agent on this planet (because we obviously didn’t create ourselves) and b) the process of Darwinian evolution (because it's a material process that requires semiosis in order to function, and therefore cannot be the source of that semiosis). I then end up telling you that your edict that we exclude these universal observations must be based on an assumed conclusion. The only logical detangling of your position suggests that you must have somehow eliminated agency from even being a possibility prior to its appearance on Earth. And in return you say “Oh no, you can't ascribe that to me, after all, I believe that life and agency have arisen many times in many places”.

Where it gets very strange is that you continue to ascribe to me that assumption after I have directly informed you that I believe the opposite.

Yeah, and I am informing you that the many facets of your ad hoc position are logically incoherent with one another. Upright BiPed

"When we describe biological processes we typically use informational narratives -- cells send out signals, developmental programs are run, coded instructions are read, genomic data are transmitted between generations and so forth," Walker said. "So identifying life's origin in the way information is processed and managed can open up new avenues for research."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/accounting_for067461.html Mung

RB,

I meant that YOU have thereby excluded living agents as the cause of recorded information on earth, because living agency requires recorded information … Hence the need for the post hoc backflip..

Again, there is no post-hoc back-flip. You asked questions. I answered them. You asked for clarifications. You received them. You then dropped the line of enquiry and moved on to other questions. Now you’ve run out of gas, and so you’ve returned with the wholly deceptive suggestion that I “excluded living agents as the cause of recorded information on earth because living agents require recorded information”.

RB at 996: Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function? UB at 1001: If it is a matter of universal observation that all examples of semiosis on this planet originate/operate from massive pre-existing organization, on what grounds am I obligated to exclude that observation when considering the origin of semiosis on this planet? RB at 1003: On the grounds that you just stated that among kinds of causes that observation tells us cannot create/originate/cause the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state are those that require recorded information to function. Do not all living agents require recorded information to function? If so, why aren’t they excluded on that ground? UB at 1009: The question at hand is the source of semiosis on this individual planet roughly 3 billion years ago, not the ultimate source of organization in any conceivable context. RB at 1011: ? UB at 1016: I don’t mean to impart any inconsistency, and I believe the context of the conversation demonstrates that I haven’t. You had asked me what class of mechanism could and could not create a semiotic state. I had already answered the first part of your question by drawing on the observation that all semiosis on earth stems from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. an agent). And here is my answer to the second part of your question:

“Again, I refer to observation; inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial condition provides no examples of producing semiotic states. I would also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function, such as Darwinian evolution as it is documented to function in living things.

It should be abundantly clear from this that I was addressing any speculated material process being the source of the semiosis in the genome on a pre-biotic earth. It should also be obvious that this would include the Darwinian process which requires that semiosis in order to exist. You then went on question why an agency mechanism is not also disqualified on the grounds that it would require semiosis as well. However, it does not follow that a proposed agency mechanism requires the semiosis in the genome of a pre-biotic earth, which is the very thing needing an explanation. As I said in my previous response; “The question at hand is the source of semiosis on this individual planet roughly 3 billion years ago, not the ultimate source of organization in any conceivable context.” In short, in the first instance I was addressing a material process which cannot logically both explain the semiosis on earth while at the same time require it for existence. And in the second instance I was addressing an agent mechanism which can explain that semiosis because it does not depend upon it. Again, this should be obvious from the context. RB at 1044: When you return, UB, why not cut to the chase and tell us where this all goes?

Upright BiPed

RB at 1310,

Yes, I saw the rhetorical backflip. When you excluded “any process that requires recorded information in order to function” you didn’t mean “any process that requires recorded information in order to function” (how silly of me).

There is no back flip here Bill. “Backflip” is a cheap characterization, given so that you may remove my words from the direct (undeniable) context in which they were given, and instead place them wherever they might do you some rhetorical duty. Try reading again: You asked what ‘could not’ create a semiotic state:

Again, I refer to observation; inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial condition provides no examples of producing semiotic states. I would also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function, such as Darwinian evolution as it is documented to function in living things.

Do you see those words “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial conditions”? Does that sound like I was speaking about “agency”? Does it? What characteristics do you see in “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial conditions” that indicates “agency” to you? Is it the “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law” part of the sentence, or is it more the “from any identifiable initial condition” part? Is it a little of both? “acted upon by physical law from initial conditions” = agency ? Do you really believe I was speaking to you about agency involvement when I said “inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any initial conditions”? Of course not. No one would. - - - - - - - - - - - - - You have now resorted to defending your worldview by the use of common fraud. Congratulations Bill. Upright BiPed

According to one source: "A descriptive theory tells us the ways things are, but not what we ought to do." See also: Options of Descriptive Theory Mung

UB:

And here is my answer to the second part of your question…

Yes, I saw the rhetorical backflip. When you excluded "any process that requires recorded information in order to function" you didn't mean "any process that requires recorded information in order to function" (how silly of me). You meant to exclude "semiosis in the genome of a prebiotic earth, the very thing needing an explanation." But post hoc contortions won't help you here, as the issue is not what you said (and meant, however they differ), but what I said and meant, and whether your inference regarding my metaphysical assumptions was justified by what I actually said. What I intended doesn't need post hoc revision. Upon noting that you excluded "any process that requires recorded information" (which I took to mean, "any process that requires recorded information"), I meant that YOU have thereby excluded living agents as the cause of recorded information on earth, because living agency requires recorded information. Claiming both is a flat contradiction. Hence the need for the post hoc backflip. What you can infer about me from that is that I notice when you flatly contradict yourself.

If agency was impossible prior to life on earth, then it could not explain the semiosis on earth...In other words, you simply assume your conclusion.

As stated above, it happens to be my belief (no more than an assumption, I freely admit) that life has likely arisen in many places and times in this universe, agency somewhat less often (depending upon one's definition of agency). Your ascription to me of an assumed conclusion not only bears zero resemblance to my actual objection, it ascribes to me an assumption opposite to that which I actually assume. Where it gets very strange is that you continue to ascribe to me that assumption after I have directly informed you that I believe the opposite. Reciprocating Bill

And here I thought a sovereign was a coin. Mung

RB at 1307, I understand your situation Bill. As it turns out, you have absolutely no way to refute the observations in the OP. This has been made obvious. But even worse, you cannot even address them without confirming them. And given that it is obviously beyond your ability to acknowledge this fact, you are left to fabricate rhetoric and cling to unsustainable positions. This is now the second or third time you played this latest one. Let’s get this straight. Throughout all of our human observations regarding the material processes within this universe, in its entirety, there is one set of material conditions that is singularly unlike any other. It is the one where we, living things of every kind on earth, transfer information by the use of a material medium. We have exactly one model for this process, and none other. And yet that one model covers every single instance where information is transferred. Yet when we then find these exact same material conditions demonstrated in the expression of genetic information, your position is that we must exclude our universal observations, because if we fail to do so, we would create an infinite regress - which is valid only if materialism is true. Sorry Skip, I don’t have to assume your conclusions just because you do. Neither does anyone else.

RB: Also, within your framework, do not living agents (displaying massive organization) require recorded information to function? Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function? UB: If it is a matter of universal observation that all examples of semiosis on this planet originate/operate from massive pre-existing organization, on what grounds am I obligated to exclude that observation when considering the origin of semiosis on this planet? Will excluding the observation reverse the material requirements? RB: On the grounds that you just stated that among kinds of causes that observation tells us cannot create/originate/cause the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state are those that require recorded information to function. Do not all living agents require recorded information to function? If so, why aren’t they excluded on that ground? UB: You had asked me what class of mechanism could and could not create a semiotic state. I had already answered the first part of your question by drawing on the observation that all semiosis on earth stems from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. an agent). And here is my answer to the second part of your question:

“Again, I refer to observation; inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial condition provides no examples of producing semiotic states. I would also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function, such as Darwinian evolution as it is documented to function in living things.

It should be abundantly clear from this that I was addressing any speculated material process being the source of the semiosis in the genome on a pre-biotic earth. It should also be obvious that this would include the Darwinian process which requires that semiosis in order to exist. You then went on question why an agency mechanism is not also disqualified on the grounds that it would require semiosis as well. However, it does not follow that a proposed agency mechanism requires the semiosis in the genome of a pre-biotic earth, which is the very thing needing an explanation.

Read that last sentence again Bill. If agency was impossible prior to life on earth, then it could not explain the semiosis on earth. On the other hand, if agency was not impossible prior to life on earth, then ... In other words, you simply assume your conclusion. You can run all the rhetoric you wish Bill, I’m not obligated to assume materialism is true just in order to save you the hassle of dealing with the universal observations of mankind. - - - - - - - - - -

UB:: you haven’t demonstrated the sovereignty to even acknowledge the validity of the observations regarding the system as we find it today, so you’ve wagered nothing in having an genuine exchange about its origin. RB: “Sovereignty?” You are one strange writer.

(Merriam Webster) sovereign : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere; an acknowledged leader I suppose you have a point. I shouldn’t have expected an entrenched ideologue to understand he has the authority over his own actions. There is little doubt he would find such a suggestion "strange" in comparison. Upright BiPed

UB:

Valid observations of material conditions were presented. You responded by advocating that (since agency involvement would require those same material conditions) these valid observations should be summarily excluded from consideration.

Another weird, revisionist account of a prior conversation. Recall that when asked, "Please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state," you stated:

Our universal experience is that semiotic states rise only (or are in operation only) from massive organization (i.e. living agents).

Also recall that when asked, "please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state," you stated:

I would also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function

My emphasis. (You later clarified that neither claim flows from semiotic theory per se.) In response to which I asked: …within your framework, do not living agents (displaying massive organization) require recorded information to function? Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function? That was the basis of my objection. The exchange continued: UB:

on what grounds am I obligated to exclude that observation when considering the origin of semiosis on this planet?

RB:

On the grounds that you just stated that among kinds of causes that observation tells us cannot create/originate/cause the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state are those that require recorded information to function. Do not all living agents require recorded information to function? If so, why aren’t they excluded on that ground?

In one breath you stated that by "universal observation" semiotic states arise only from living agents. In the next you excluded "any process" (my emphasis) that requires recorded information in order to function. Last I looked, it was your claim that all living agents require recorded information in order to function. That obvious contradiction was the basis of my objection, twice clearly stated. Any conclusions vis my "metaphysical position" you drew directly from your own fevered brain pan. (Although not important here, your solution was a backflip of special pleading: "The question at hand is the source of semiosis on this individual planet roughly 3 billion years ago, not the ultimate source of organization in any conceivable context.”) UB:

The infinite regress is not a problem for me because I have no metaphysical priors which deny the valid logical ‘among a contingent universe something must be necessary’.

I have no idea what that means.

I could only “contradict” my statement if I had subsequently claimed that she really could provide a conceptual example. But I did not say that, and I have no reason to.

Your statement was, "You withdrew because the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process, and you know it." It is this clause that is flatly contradicted by your recent statements: "the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process."

Secondly, you haven’t demonstrated the sovereignty to even acknowledge the validity of the observations…

"Sovereignty?" You are one strange writer. Reciprocating Bill

Perhaps comparative details are forthcoming.

Comparative detailed hand-waving. Mung

Eric @ 1293 I too have been interested in the details of this hypothetical falisfication. How can one say that the material conditions described in the OP are not necessary if one cannot even describe how a counter-example would accomplish what has to be accmplished? Of course, the first time this subject was approached at TSZ, the response was hardly convincing:

I am almost certain (from long experience) that Upright would like to avoid my questions by focusing instead on irrelevant details. Fortunately, that’s not necessary. We can talk about self-replicating molecules in the abstract, just as Upright talks about semiotic systems in the abstract.

Not only did I not speak in the abstract, I demonstrated my argument using the specific objects within the extisting genetic system. Perhaps comparative details are forthcoming. Upright BiPed

RB at 1286,

I do recall you incorrectly ascribing that view to me.

Valid observations of material conditions were presented. You responded by advocating that (since agency involvement would require those same material conditions) these valid observations should be summarily excluded from consideration. This puts you in the logical position of saying that agency involvement was not possible prior to its rise on Earth. Only by wholly excluding it as a possibility can you have reason to dismiss it from the rise of life on earth.

It is certainly within the realm of possibility that life on earth was “seeded.” However, the issue of regress is inherent in that hypothesis, as it kicks the OOL can down the road. Given that you find the “seeding” hypothesis compelling and I don’t, that would be your problem, not mine.

Don’t be silly. The infinite regress is not a problem for me because I have no metaphysical priors which deny the valid logical 'among a contingent universe something must be necessary’. The regress is nothing more than a rhetorical tool for materialist culture warriors, born from their own assumptions. They project it upon their opposition, while they quietly resolve it for themselves with a hypothetical transcendent multi-verse. It’s a complete joke.

UB: That comment was perfectly suited to the person it was made to; as evidence by the fact that she could not provide one. RB: Nevertheless, it is flatly contradicted by your more recent statements.

I could only “contradict” my statement if I had subsequently claimed that she really could provide a conceptual example. But I did not say that, and I have no reason to. Perhaps you meant to say that my statement could be “falsified” by her conceptual example, but that didn’t happen.

Vis simpler instances of Darwinan replication, variation and differential reproductive success: the RNA-world hypothesis (again, as an example) turns on the conceptually feasible notion of precursor replicators that exhibit no genotype/phenotype distinction, and are therefore devoid several (all?) of the key “entailments.”

As I said in my previous post, absent any details, there is no point in arguing this with you. Firstly, it doesn’t change the observations in the OP. Secondly, you haven’t demonstrated the sovereignty to even acknowledge the validity of the observations regarding the system as we find it today, so you’ve wagered nothing in having an genuine exchange about its origin. And thirdly, the conversation goes nowhere. I say: “Here are the necessary material conditions of information transfer” You say: “They aren’t necessary” I say: “How so?” You say: “Simpler replicators with variation and differential reproductive success” I say: “That’s a lot of function, how does it work?” You say: “It’s hypothetical” I say” “It’s hypothetical?” You say: “Therefore you’re claims are false” - - - - - - - - - - Forgive me if I don’t ride that bus. :| Upright BiPed

kairosfocus, Yes, I get it but it is a given that Alan doesn't or just refuses to. Joe

The algorithmic origin of life google Mung

According to the researchers, all living things have one property that inanimate objects don't: Information flows in two directions.

Another hallmark of living beings is that they have different physical locations for storing and reading information. For instance, the alphabet of letters in DNA carries the instructions for life, but another part of the cell, called the ribosome, must translate those instructions into actions inside the cell, Davies told LiveScience.

Sounds suspiciously like a claim that life is semiotic.

By this definition, computers, which store data on a hard drive and read it off using a central processing unit, would have the hallmarks of life

Or that living things contain systems exhibiting the hallmarks of a computer. Mung

1300 comments and still no rebuttal. Mung

Using a chemical definition of life — for instance, requiring DNA — may limit the hunt for extraterrestrial life, and it also may wrongly include nonliving systems, for instance, a petri dish full of self-replicating DNA, she said.

lol Mung

Joe: AF is adequately answered by the fact -- commented on here in the Jerad thread -- that Dawkins felt it necessary to resort to the RNA world hyp and to suppress its challenges, in the book AF has put on the table. The result blows up the root of the tree of life. The logic is: no root, no basis for shoots. And of course, having falsely accused me of being "dishonest" for pointing out Dawkins' epistemological blunder in over-claiming warrant and his moral one in comparing invidiously those who question to holocaust deniers, while AF has popped up elsewhere in the past 36 hrs or so he has not been seen in that thread. I hope this changes by later today when I can check back. KF kairosfocus

Alan Fox:

As I keep saying, evolution does not attempt to address the arrival of life on Earth, only its subsequent diversity.

Do you really think that your willful ignorance means something? Really?? Logic dictates that if the ToE does NOT address the origin of life then it cannot address its diversity as the two are directly linked. Joe

And the 'Information' flowing in on this subject just continues http://news.yahoo.com/origin-life-needs-rethink-scientists-argue-000826792.html DavidD

So aren’t we back to the question on the table? What is the most likely origin of the semiotic system we see before us today — purposeful design or chance?

Reciprocating Bill, and most other critics, must deny that the system is in fact semiotic. I await Reciprocating Bill's review of the following: Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs Mung

The RNA World hypothesis is constructed from two observations. 1. RNA can serve as a physical medium for the transfer of recorded information. 2.) RNA can serve (assist?) as a catalyst in biochemical reactions. From these two observations it does not follow that RNA is, or even can be, a self-replicating molecule. Reciprocating Bill, and keiths, thrive on the hope of hypothetical entities for which they have no theoretical or observational evidence. Ain't hope grand? Mung

RB @1286: I'm trying to understand your viewpoint with respect to OOL not needing the entailments UB describes that we currently see in biology. Setting aside for a moment the very significant problems with the RNA-world hypothesis, are you suggesting that in an RNA-first scenario an RNA string itself was self-replicating? In other words, if I'm filling in the details of your hypothesis properly, the scenario is something like this: (i) an RNA string arises that has the ability to self-replicate (presumably this string arose purely by chance); (ii) the RNA string continues to self-replicate, with chance mutations over time, until it gains the ability to carry out some additional function, say, to catalyze some reaction (again, this ability would have arisen purely by chance); (iii) the RNA string continues to self-replicate, with more chance mutations, until it happens upon the right sequence to code for a particular protein (again, this sequence would have arisen purely by chance); (iv) at the same time, we have, what, some other independent stuff arising? For example, there has to be some kind of process (meaning, molecular machine and information driven sequence of events) to build the protein based coded for in the RNA sequence (again, this information and suite of machines would have arisen purely by chance); (v) eventually, the RNA string would build a simple organism, build DNA, create a code and put in place all the entailments UB has been discussing (presumably all this would have arisen purely by chance). Sorry. I obviously got pretty lazy with (iv) and (v). I started this comment with the intent of putting in some detail, but quickly despaired at about step (iii), as it is utterly unclear what the RNA-world would propose as logical steps to get to what we see today. In summary, I guess I'm not seeing how an RNA-string starting point gets us anywhere closer to explaining the entailments UB points out currently exist in biology -- other than relying on pure chance that is. So aren't we back to the question on the table? What is the most likely origin of the semiotic system we see before us today -- purposeful design or chance? Eric Anderson

Alan Fox @1284:

As I keep saying, evolution does not attempt to address the arrival of life on Earth, only its subsequent diversity.

I don't have a problem with treating evolution as applying only after the arrival of life on Earth, whatever its historical underpinnings. So, assuming that evolution is irrelevant to OOL, would it be fair to say that life was originally intentionally created? If not, what alternative do you favor? Eric Anderson

Reciprocating Bill: conceptually feasible conceptually possible conceptually plausible Do these three phrases all mean the same thing? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

Vis simpler instances of Darwinan replication, variation and differential reproductive success: the RNA-world hypothesis (again, as an example) turns on the conceptually feasible notion of precursor replicators that exhibit no genotype/phenotype distinction, and are therefore devoid several (all?) of the key “entailments.”

Conceptually Feasible = I can imagin it, therefore it must be possible. Are unicorns conceptually feasible? If not, why not? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

My actual belief is that life has arisen at many times/places in the universe...

And the evidence is...? Mung

RB:

Susan Mazur may be crazy, but she isn’t a researcher, in the sense of “scientific researcher.” She is a journalist.

A journalist interviewing and quoting researchers. What's your point, if you have one? Mung

UB:

It sure sounds like these crazy researchers recognize that it’s the existence of recorded information which facilitates the Darwinian mechanism.

Susan Mazur may be crazy, but she isn't a researcher, in the sense of "scientific researcher." She is a journalist. Reciprocating Bill

UB:

What we’ve learned is that your position turns on a personal metaphysic belief that agency was an impossibility prior to life on earth.

I do recall you incorrectly ascribing that view to me. My actual belief is that life has arisen at many times/places in the universe, and that the suite of adaptations we describe as "agency" has arisen somewhat less often (a frequency that dramatically turns on one's definition of "agency"). It is certainly within the realm of possibility that life on earth was "seeded." However, the issue of regress is inherent in that hypothesis, as it kicks the OOL can down the road. Given that you find the "seeding" hypothesis compelling and I don't, that would be your problem, not mine.

That comment was perfectly suited to the person it was made to; as evidence by the fact that she could not provide one. I have since invited you to provide one, which you failed to do.

Nevertheless, it is flatly contradicted by your more recent statements. Vis simpler instances of Darwinan replication, variation and differential reproductive success: the RNA-world hypothesis (again, as an example) turns on the conceptually feasible notion of precursor replicators that exhibit no genotype/phenotype distinction, and are therefore devoid several (all?) of the key "entailments." Similarly, conceptually possible precursor replicators in which codons are assembled of four or more base pairs, and can therefore utilize RNA - RNA interactions to synthesize proteins absent ribosomes (and hence absent your "protocol"), are being modeled. These examples establish that Darwinian replicators lacking various of your entailments are conceptually feasible. They further established that it is conceptually plausible that such Darwinian replication gave rise to "the entailments" by unguided means. They each also suggest further avenues of empirical research.

You want a specific example of how knowing 'an arbitrary relationship must be instantiated in the system'can assist those who are trying to replicate the system.

Not exactly. What I am asking of you is a demonstration of that "certain knowledge" guiding specific empirical research into the origins of that system. Will you please provide just one sketch of an example (there should be many) at the level of specificity present in your fantasy of putting me on trial for arson? An example of that certain knowledge making a difference to empirical research. RB summarizes UB:

Simpler Darwinian systems aren’t possible.

(The referent is "Simpler Darwinian systems.") UB takes issue with that summary:

As already stated, a simpler system may or may not be possible.

(The referent remains "Simpler Darwinian systems.") From which it follows that you don't know whether a simpler Darwinian system is possible. From which it further follows that so called "universal observation and logical necessity," even as you construe them, leave open the question of whether simpler Darwinian systems are possible.

They are attempting to resolve the genotype/phenotype distinction

Among their efforts are hypothesized precursor systems that lack the genotype/phenotype distinction, systems further hypothesized to have given rise to that distinction by Darwinian (unguided) means. Reciprocating Bill

And as I keep saying, Darwin's theory of evolution was offered as an alternative to the theory of special creation and therefore does attempt to address the arrival of life on Earth. Mung

UB quoting Harry Lonsdale:

I think that first life was capable of evolution and that evolution began on that day that first life came into being. Was there evolution before that first life? I don’t think that. Evolution is what brought that first life to you and me — a long, long tedious process that took billions of years.

Evolution came after the first life.

As I keep saying, evolution does not attempt to address the arrival of life on Earth, only its subsequent diversity. Alan Fox

an inventory of the necessary material conditions for the transfer of recorded information should not assume any conclusions as to the source of the transfer (i.e methodological discipline).

But it's not as if humans have never constructed systems the purpose of which is to transfer recorded information. Those systems and how and why they arose can still be studied to day. You have explicitly agreed; an accurate description of a system is essential to understanding it. One might say that understanding a system entails an accurate description of the system.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

The book was better. So was the movie. Mung

It is has been quite an eye-opener to be arguing with “Darwinian” materialists over the observed mechanism of Darwinian evolution. I noticed a passage from a link in regard to Darwinian mechanisms (replicators, the onset of information, etc) regarding the origin of life (an exchange between OoL philanthropist Harry Lonsdale and science writer Susan Mathur):

Harry Lonsdale: Can I back up before I answer that question. That sentence you read to me over the phone as to what I hoped it was people would give me in terms of their proposals, I must say I was very much underwhelmed by the breadth of their proposals. Even the experts I drew together in San Diego a month or so ago, even they don't have a single clear model of how life began. There's no universal agreement. We don't have a theory. We're a long way from home base. Probably 10 or 20 years away before we have a plausible model and even further out into the future before we can say we know how life began. I'll be dead before people can make that statement. Suzan Mazur: Is it because your background is in chemistry that you were more interested in proposals based on chemical approaches to origin of life? Harry Lonsdale: I would say that of the eight people on my panel, three at most were trained in chemistry, some were biochemists, there was one physicist, a space scientist and two biologists -- it was a pretty broad range of expertise. No engineers. I guess we underplayed the physical processes, but not intentionally. Suzan Mazur: But did you get proposals along those lines? Harry Lonsdale: A few. We had proposals that came in from every direction. Suzan Mazur: Chris McKay once told me the following: "The Darwinian paradigm breaks down in two obvious ways. First, and most clear, Darwinian selection cannot be responsible for the origin of life. Secondly, there is some thought that Darwinian selection cannot fully explain the rise of complexity at the molecular level. . . . It can't be Darwinian all the way down. . . . Darwinian selection only works when there's software. And everything that's prebiotic is hardware." Again, "life" has been defined on the Origin of Life Challenge website as "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution." My question is that by steering your prizewinning search for the origin of life in the direction of Darwinian science, which is now being seriously marginalized in light of the "evo-devo revolution" -- as Noam Chomsky put it -- and the evolution paradigm shift, with some of our most esteemed scientists declaring neo-Darwinism dead -- the accumulation of genetic mutations being enough to change one species to another having not been validated in the literature -- are you concerned that you and your panel may have angled the prize in the direction of false hypotheses? Harry Lonsdale: I think that first life was capable of evolution and that evolution began on that day that first life came into being. Was there evolution before that first life? I don't think that. Evolution is what brought that first life to you and me -- a long, long tedious process that took billions of years. We were hoping people might submit proposals covering the gamut, from first life to modern life. No proposals attempted to do that. It's too big a question right now. It's 2012 -- let's wait until 2025. Maybe by then people will have put the whole puzzle together, but right now we're looking at pieces, or pieces of pieces, of this puzzle. Suzan Mazur: What I'm questioning is the angling of the prize to Darwinian science which is now being marginalized. Harry Lonsdale: When you say angling toward. It's true. First life was angling toward but not yet there. Evolution came after the first life. Suzan Mazur: I asked Dave Deamer if life had a beginning or is it just part of a process inherent to the Universe. And he said, "It's part of a process." I also asked him if evolution started when the Universe was born. His response was "It depends on what you want to call evolution." Harry Lonsdale: Evolution is a process once life exists, is how I would put it.

“Darwinian evolution only works when there’s software”??? It sure sounds like these crazy researchers recognize that it's the existence of recorded information which facilitates the Darwinian mechanism. :) Don’t tell the fine folks at TSZ, as dogmatically as they fight for Darwin to have a seat at the information table, they’ll be so disappointed. Upright BiPed

RB at 1275, Was that your summation, counselor? Of all your posts here, which have included some real Deusies, your last was your weakest. You took all your previous attacks and positioning ploys (which each failed under examination) and simply ran them again in bulk, with plenty of “therefores” and “neverthelesses” tossed in for good measure. Perhaps you intended to imply the very thing you failed to demonstrate. Let’s look:

We learned that you believe that “massive organization” in the form of living agents is responsible for the origin of the translation of DNA into proteins on earth 3.5. billion years ago.

My statement is empirically-based, and is parsimonious with the universal observation that all instances of semiosis are produced from “massive pre-existing organization”. What we’ve learned is that your position turns on a personal metaphysic belief that agency was an impossibility prior to life on earth. Whereas my position acknowledges the material evidence (presented in my argument) remains unaltered by anyone's prior assumptions.

But we also learned that the inference that compels that conclusion isn’t applicable to those agents themselves, or the origin of ‘the entailments’/the TRI/a semiotic state anywhere else.

Yet again, this does nothing whatsoever to alter the material evidence. Our lack of knowledge being what it is; on one side of a rational line of inquiry appears an infinite regress (which informs us of nothing), and on the other side is the valid logic that if everything is contingent, then there must be something that is necessary. We can choose which side of that line satisfies us and we can contemplate why we choose among them. For generations materialists happily (and selectively) believed the universe was eternal and needed no explanation from where it came. You have chosen to not be agnostic on the matter, so throwing stones at the infinite regress (without having a solution) is hardly substantive.

We learned that semiotic theory per se does not assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. It therefore does not compel the conclusion that design is required. We learned that semiotic theory per se does not assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Therefore unguided processes are not excluded by semiotic theory.

Correct, an inventory of the necessary material conditions for the transfer of recorded information should not assume any conclusions as to the source of the transfer (i.e methodological discipline).

We therefore learned that claims such as “the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process” do not follow from semiotic theory, after all.

That comment was perfectly suited to the person it was made to; as evidence by the fact that she could not provide one. I have since invited you to provide one, which you failed to do.

We learned that, nevertheless, that construing a system as “semiotic” adds great value to the contemporary physicochemical (Thank you Allan)** description of the translation of DNA into proteins.

You have explicitly agreed; an accurate description of a system is essential to understanding it.

We also learned, however, that construing a system as “semiotic” yields no entailments beyond those that already follow from that physicochemical description. To ask for the same is “to impose on it questions that it does not answer.”

If that physicochemical description does not account for the arbitrary relationship which is universally observed in such systems (including the system under question) then that description cannot help but be incomplete. You are not arguing with the more comprehensive description because it adds nothing. Why the pretense otherwise, if not to mount a rhetorical defense?

When I asked for just one example, analogous to your arson tale, that illustrates that value, we learned that OoL researchers (and hordes of onlookers) can know with complete certainty that a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system must be accounted for in order to explain the origin of life. But that’s not really very specific, is it.

lol. Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

So I asked again for just one specific example illustrating how that ‘certain knowledge’ can in fact guide specific empirical research. We learned that we don’t get to learn that.

You want a specific example of how knowing ‘an arbitrary relationship must be instantiated in the system’ can assist those who are trying to replicate the system. You’re not that dumb, perhaps that obtuse.

We learned not only that contemporary Darwinian systems display ‘the entailments’/the TRI/a semiotic state, but that all Darwinian systems MUST display those entailments.

Correct, the Darwinian mechanism operates on the existence of recorded information. If there is recorded information, then the material conditions required for it will be present.

Simpler Darwinian systems aren’t possible. Not that you said they aren’t possible. But they aren’t, because you said so.

As already stated, a simpler system may or may not be possible. This does not change what universal observation and logical necessity demonstrates as necessary.

We should be grateful. You’ve spared researchers interested in, for example, the RNA world hypothesis (which postulates a replicating Darwinian system devoid of a distinction between genotype and phenotype) a great deal of work, because you have certain knowledge that such hypotheses must be wrong. These researchers should defer to your armchair and expend their efforts on something else.

Based on your own understanding of the issues, I don’t think you need to worry overmuch about OoL researchers. They are attempting to resolve the genotype/phenotype distinction, not ignore it or pretend it adds nothing to the conversation. You should try reading their work.

Oh, and we learned that when you make flatly, abjectly contradictory statements, to point that out is “obfuscation” and “word smithing.”

People who obfuscate issues for the express purpose of gaining a rhetorical benefit, never enjoy being called out for it. You are no different.

Oh yeah, we learned that you’re very concerned about my horse.

What you’ve demonstrated is that your personal metaphysical assumptions trump material evidence, universal observation and logical necessity – violating the first rule of science. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ** I was forced to return to TSZ in order to understand the reference to Allan Miller’s correction of the term “physiochemical”. I should thank Allan as well. Oddly enough, an OoL researcher I have read in the past typically referred to these relationships as “physicochemically inert”, which is a term I picked up and used for quite some time - only to face the same style of pointless questioning that Onlooker has made famous on this thread. So I simply went back to “materially arbitrary”. Not until Bill used the term “physiochemically arbitrary” on this thread did I return to that phrase (not noticing the slight distinction in spelling and hence meaning). Even more odd; my word processing software has no problem with “physiochemical” but always rejected “physicochemical”. In any case, it is good that we understood the each other without the fabricated misinterpretation which has been demonstrated elsewhere on this thread. Upright BiPed

McKay explained that Darwinian evolution, the dominant process on the planet, involves self-replication, a process only found in living things, and thus can't be responsible for the original creation of life.

http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/4835/the-origin-of-life-challenge-searching-for-how-life-began Mung

The Genotype/Phenotype Distinction Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

...the RNA world hypothesis...postulates a replicating Darwinian system devoid of a distinction between genotype and phenotype...

Again, an assertion for which not a single shred of evidence is offered. Bill, we're skeptics here. We require strong evidence in support of such claims. Mung

Oh yeah, we learned that you’re very concerned about my horse.

Your horse is dead Bill. You want us to be concerned over it's burial? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

- We learned that semiotic theory per se does not assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. It therefore does not compel the conclusion that design is required.

That's right Bill. Design is not a conclusion, it's an inference. How many times do we have to say this before you stop crowing over each instance where it's demonstrated to be true? Reciprocating Bill seems to think that design should be rejected since it does not follow as a logical deduction. RB:

But we also learned that the inference that compels that conclusion isn’t applicable to those agents themselves, or the origin of ‘the entailments’/the TRI/a semiotic state anywhere else.

An inference that compels a conclusion? That's what you are looking for? It's no surprise to me that "an inference that compels a conclusion" isn't applicable to whatever it is that you want to apply it to. What does that even mean? An inference that compels a conclusion. I don't even know what language that is. Bill, are you just making stuff up now?

- We also learned, however, that construing a system as “semiotic” yields no entailments beyond those that already follow from that physicochemical description.

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion from that paragon of skepticism, Reciprocating Bill. Nothing follows from a description. Fail at logic! sigh Are you the best that TSZ has to offer? Mung

UB:

Entirely gone are the smug claims of a complete and utter refutation of the argument in the OP

But we've learned so much. - We learned that you believe that "massive organization" in the form of living agents is responsible for the origin of the translation of DNA into proteins on earth 3.5. billion years ago. - But we also learned that the inference that compels that conclusion isn't applicable to those agents themselves, or the origin of 'the entailments'/the TRI/a semiotic state anywhere else. - We learned that semiotic theory per se does not assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. It therefore does not compel the conclusion that design is required. - We learned that semiotic theory per se does not assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Therefore unguided processes are not excluded by semiotic theory. - We therefore learned that claims such as "the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process" do not follow from semiotic theory, after all. - We learned that, nevertheless, that construing a system as "semiotic" adds great value to the contemporary physicochemical (Thank you Allan) description of the translation of DNA into proteins. - We also learned, however, that construing a system as "semiotic" yields no entailments beyond those that already follow from that physicochemical description. To ask for the same is "to impose on it questions that it does not answer." - Nevertheless, we learned that construing a system as "semiotic" can still be very valuable. - When I asked for just one example, analogous to your arson tale, that illustrates that value, we learned that OoL researchers (and hordes of onlookers) can know with complete certainty that a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system must be accounted for in order to explain the origin of life. - But that's not really very specific, is it. Not as specific as a one paragraph fire tetrahedron fable in which you imagine putting me on trial for arson. (Freud smiles somewhere). - So I asked again for just one specific example illustrating how that ‘certain knowledge’ can in fact guide specific empirical research. - We learned that we don't get to learn that. - We learned not only that contemporary Darwinian systems display 'the entailments'/the TRI/a semiotic state, but that all Darwinian systems MUST display those entailments. Simpler Darwinian systems aren't possible. Not that you said they aren't possible. But they aren't, because you said so. We should be grateful. You've spared researchers interested in, for example, the RNA world hypothesis (which postulates a replicating Darwinian system devoid of a distinction between genotype and phenotype) a great deal of work, because you have certain knowledge that such hypotheses must be wrong. These researchers should defer to your armchair and expend their efforts on something else. - Oh, and we learned that when you make flatly, abjectly contradictory statements, to point that out is "obfuscation" and "word smithing." - Oh yeah, we learned that you're very concerned about my horse. Reciprocating Bill

keiths:

Darwinian evolution doesn’t require a genotype/phenotype distinction. If you have replication with heritable variation and differential reproductive success, then you have Darwinian evolution.

All assertion. No evidence. In true "skeptical" (read TSZ) style.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

A trait is a distinct variant of a phenotypic character of an organism that may be inherited, be environmentally determined or be a combination of the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_trait

Darwinism originally included broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

The central dogma of molecular biology describes the flow of genetic information within a biological system. It was first stated by Francis Crick in 1958[1] and re-stated in a Nature paper published in 1970:[2] Information flow in biological systems The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. Or, as Marshall Nirenberg said, "DNA makes RNA makes protein."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology Why are we teaching these people about Darwinian evolution? Shouldn't they know this already? Mung

Can you at least attempt to demonstrate that the observations in the argument are false, or that the conclusions do not logically follow from those observations? Mung

RB at 1269,

we can know with complete certainty* that a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system must be accounted for in order to explain the Origin of Life.**

*(With “complete certainty,” eh? Modest, much?) **(Which again assumes the conclusion that simpler precursor replicators lacking some or all of your “entailments” are impossible.)

* I am also certain that a fire requires a heat source, fuel, and oxydizer. ** The argument in the OP is not about whether or not a simpler precursor replicates while lacking some or all of the entailments described in my argument. Its about what is materially necessary to transfer and translate recorded information, including that within the genome. Can you demonstrate that the observations in the argument are false, or that the conclusions do not logically follow from those obsverations? Upright BiPed

RB at 1268, Entirely gone are the smug claims of a complete and utter refutation of the argument in the OP, now you've atrophied to the point of wordsmithing a side exchange which does nothing whatsoever to refute the observations or logic in the argument.

There is only one possible referent of “you say that a simpler system is possible,” namely my recent statements referring to hypothesized simpler Darwinian precursors

Then I needn't waste any more time trying to get you to acknowledge the distinction between a merely simpler system versus one that does not require recorded information, such as the Darwinian mechanism. If the entire planet's inventory of biology textbooks and research papers are not enough for you grasp this distinction, then what hope do I have? By the way... the immediate referent of my comment was your claim: “Darwinian evolution is not dependent upon the presence of the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state in order to function. That claim inaccurately conveys the essential elements upon which the Darwinian process depends.” ...which is demonstrably false. Darwinian evolution is a material process which is wholly depedent upon information materially recorded in the genome. And as far as the transfer of genetic information not exemplifying a semiotic state, that is the claim which you have been so clearly unable to refute. So in one hand you'd like to make statements completely contrary to the universal observations of biology, and in the other you'd like to simply assume your conclusion (which you admit is a purely hypothetical belief to begin with). Very convincing. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill:

How would someone with your views, skills, interests and intuitions put that knowledge to empirical work?

Red herring. How is your hypothetical simpler system for which you have no actual empirical evidence distinguishable from the system set out in the OP? Croak Mung

UB:

we can know with complete certainty* that a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system must be accounted for in order to explain the Origin of Life.**

What I am asking for is an illustration of how that 'certain knowledge' can guide specific empirical research. You say that it can guide researchers (and hordes of onlookers) in many ways, depending upon their views, skills, interests, and intuitions. Will you please provide an example (there should be many) at the level of specificity present in your fantasy of putting me on trial for arson? An example of that certain knowledge making a difference to empirical research. How would someone with your views, skills, interests and intuitions put that knowledge to empirical work? *(With "complete certainty," eh? Modest, much?) **(Which again assumes the conclusion that simpler precursor replicators lacking some or all of your "entailments" are impossible.) Reciprocating Bill

UB:

Your obfuscation is deliberate.

Now now. UB at 1256:

You say that a simpler system is capable. I have not claimed it impossible.

There is only one possible referent of "you say that a simpler system is possible," namely my recent statements referring to hypothesized simpler Darwinian precursors:

The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication and variation.

To ensure there was no misunderstanding:

The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation, and differential reproduction – IOW, a simpler process that that is nevertheless Darwinian.

And again:

a Darwinian process starting with much simpler replicators can have given rise to that apparatus...Of course, “can” denotes an hypothesis, not a conclusion."

Obviously the "simpler system" to which I refer is an hypothesized precursor in the form of a simpler Darwinian system. With that in mind: UB:

You say that a simpler system is capable. I have not claimed it impossible.

Has only one reading:

You say that a simpler system is capable. I have not claimed it [the simpler Darwinian precursor you hypothesize] impossible.

Yet obviously you have. Reciprocating Bill

Mung: It seems there is not a grasping that the chaining chemistry in effect simply clicks the chain together [making a string structure], the key differentiating aspect is in the side branches, which then lead to functionally specific outcomes on folding, agglomeration and/or activation. Moreover, the CCA coupler that loads an AA to a tRNA is a universal joint too. It is the configuration of the tRNA that sets up the specific AA to be loaded by the specific "loading enzyme." Which brings in a chicken-egg situation -- actually twenty or so of them. Then, the mRNA specifying the AA sequence starting with Methionine is determined INFORMATIONALLY based on the function of tRNA, mRNA, ribosome and the dozens of support players in the properly organised cell. Where, as I have repeatedly highlighted, something like a prick and decant into solution exercise underscores just how isolated correct, workable functional configs are in the space of physically possible arrangements. That is, multipart function based on specific config naturally leads to islands of function and it is those who would dismiss this who properly have a burden of warrant to meet. Not seeing the pivotal role of information and functionally specific organisation here, is a case of patently selective hyperskepticism that has to be worked at. Probably, due to where all of this naturally and strongly points. Namely, to the very strong induction that FSCO/I comes from design. KF kairosfocus

How do we represent a three dimensional structure with structural, mechanical or catalytic function(s) as a linear digital sequence? Can this be done by a system composed of a single part? Is that even a coherent question? Mung

A polypeptide is a single linear polymer chain of amino acids bonded together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues. The sequence of amino acids in a protein is defined by the sequence of a gene, which is encoded in the genetic code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein onlooker:

We can model transcription and translation as a code, but in fact what is actually happening is just biochemistry.

That has to be one of the most ignorant comments ever uttered. Mung

RB at 1258, Sure, no problem; its already been done. Just like the fire investigator knowing with complete certainty that a heat source had to be accounted for in order to explain the fire, so too, among the cadre of competitive OoL researchers and the hordes of onlookers, we can know with complete certainty that a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system must be accounted for in order to explain the Origin of Life. How that critical requirement serves any individual person would depend on their own views, skills, interests, and intuitions. The more the merrier. Upright BiPed

RB at 1260, Your obfuscation is deliberate. Here is exactly what I said:

I do not assume that the current system cannot have a precursor, and frankly, the precursor has no bearing on the observation being made. The current system is Darwinian evolution, which is based on the existence of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated into a physical system; the genotype-phenotype distinction (i.e. form recorded in an information-bearing medium, and the subsequent material production of that form). That relationship is absolutely fundamental to the operation of the system, and it requires very specific material conditions. The issue is the origination of those conditions. Hardly excluding a precursor (of some kind) to the establishment of the current system, one would be quite obviously necessary. But that precursor won’t be Darwinian evolution because until the material conditions exist which instantiate that physiochemically-arbitrary relationship, there is no Darwinian evolution.

Upright BiPed

How much is a Darwinian promissory note worth? Mung

What he said, Bill, is that the system is irreducibly complex. It does not follow that a simpler system is not possible. Mung

UB at 1186:

Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function. The presence of recorded information requires very specific material conditions in order to exist. Darwinian evolution cannot be the cause of those specific material conditions.

RB:

The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication and variation. IOW, a simpler process that is nevertheless Darwinian.

UB at 1256:

You say that a simpler system is capable. I have not claimed it impossible.

Well, yes you have. Reciprocating Bill

You're honor, it was all just physics and chemistry. Mung

UB:

Obviously, knowing that the necessary conditions for an accidental fire were present on that starry night in July was useless information.

Now construct an analogous narrative illustrating how knowledge of the necessary conditions for the the TRI (the entailments), have guided, or potentially could guide, investigation into the origins of the the translation of DNA into proteins. If you can, supply specifics similar in degree of detail to those in your imagined tale. Reciprocating Bill

Bill’s neighbor’s barn burned down last July, and because they had been feuding all month long, Bill was charged with the crime of arson. At his trial, the prosecution's witnesses told the jury that a suspicious can of fuel had been found very near the barn and he confidently boasted in front of the jury that “the fire didn’t just start itself”. Bill’s defense attorney began to show photographs of several other spare cans of fuel that the neighbor kept lying around his property, but even more importantly, he had information that a small fire was started just a half mile away on the previous night and eyewitnesses claimed the fire was started by blowing embers from an industrial smokestack across the road. He sought to introduce into evidence their trash burning records from July, but the Judge refused to allow the evidence. Obviously, knowing that the necessary conditions for an accidental fire were present on that starry night in July was useless information. :) Upright BiPed

RB at 1249,

UB: Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function. RB: Darwinian evolution is not dependent upon the presence of the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state in order to function.

Note the difference in these two sentences. This is simply an assertion on your part. What you have failed to do is engage the evidence presented in the argument and demonstrate it to be false in any way whatsoever.

That claim inaccurately conveys the essential elements upon which the Darwinian process depends.

The claim conveys the fact that Darwinian evolution is dependent upon the presence of recorded information by means of chemical pattern within the gene. "ALTHOUGH THE FIELD OF GENETICS attained a high degree of sophistication years ago, the molecular basis of genetic information storage and retrieval lagged behind. Only within the last IO years has the chemical structure of DNA been established, mainly through the work of Chargaff et al. (3), Wilkins et al. (2g), and Watson and Crick (28). Some 8 years ago Gamow (5) proposed a theoretical code and thereby- stimulated a great deal of interest in this problem. The direct biochemical approach, that is, comparison of the nucleotide sequence of a gene with the amino acid sequence of its corresponding protein, posed technical problems of great magnitude. Some of these difficulties have been circumvented by the experimental approach summarized here". - (Marshal Nirenberg, Approximation of Genetic Code via cell-free protein synthesis directed by template RNA, Feb 1963) I am not going to argue this point with you. What we have in the real world is a system of organismal replication which copies both its information as well as the machinery capable of translating that information into material products. I have given you an argument as to what is materially necessary for the translation of that information. You say that a simpler system is capable. I have not claimed it impossible. However, possible or not, what is necessary to transfer recorded information is not refuted merely by you making a claim.

Replication, variation and differential reproduction do not require the entire contemporary apparatus construed by UB as “the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.” Therefore a Darwinian process starting with much simpler replicators can have given rise to that apparatus.

Firstly, the apparatus in my argument is comprised of an arrangement of matter to evoke an effect within a system, and a second arrangement of matter to determine what that effect will be. This system physically establishes a necessary (fundamental) arbitrariness in the system so that information may be recorded in a medium (a gene) and result in a product that is not the medium itself. Secondly, the claim that replication, variation, and differential reproduction do not require the transfer of recorded information is a claim that has no evidence whatsoever anywhere on Earth. It’s just an unsupported claim. In this passage, you then make a non-sequitur to a second claim based on the unsupported content of the first.

Of course, “can” denotes an hypothesis, not a conclusion. That hypothesis remains to be fully cashed out empirically.

Meaning there are exactly zero examples to support your claim that replication can exist without the transfer of recorded information, as described in the argument at the top of this page.

No one is claiming to have solved the Ool, or the origins of the current genetic system.

reservation before modesty

And, as Lizzie stated, the origin of the simplest precursor replicators remains to be understood, as they indeed can’t have arisen by a Darwinian process.

facepalm Upright BiPed

RB at 1248

Of course an accurate characterization of the explanandum is important. We have that in the contemporary physiochemical understanding of the process. It is the additional construal, “it displays ‘the entailments’/the TRI/a semiotic state” that is useless. There is nothing contradictory in that.

What is contradictory is to say we need an accurate description of a system, and then deny an accurate description of the system because it doesn’t suit your personal preferences (even though you can’t refute it). Any physiochemical description of the system that does not account for the known physiochemical realities of the system is obviously an incomplete description. So if someone should propose an example of a system that did not match the valid observations of the original system, the value of having an accurate description of the original system becomes rather self-evident. Our understanding of material systems has always been advanced by a progression of more accurate models of reality (i.e. biosemiosis for instance) yet you have made it clear that you prefer to ignore these particular observations as opposed to integrating them. You choose to not integrate them not because they make your preferred explanation impossible, but because a more comprehensive and accurate description of the system presents additional hurdles for your preferred explanation to achieve. The actual validity of the observations does not even enter into it, which is why your personal judgment of them as useless is so transparent. Specifically, what you’ve failed to do is show that the observations at the top of this page are untrue, or that the conclusions do not follow from those observations. This is evidenced by the fact that you prejudice them, instead of proving them false.

For “It displays the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state” to improve upon the current description, testable empirical consequences must follow from that further characterization beyond those that follow from the physiochemical description. As you say, “Like, what it entailed?”

In the service of your ideology, you continue to have a serious problem with methodological discipline. What you say here is flatly untrue. The argument presented above needn’t do any more than it does; it employs universal observation and logical necessity to establish what is materially necessary for the transfer of recorded information. But you want to impose on it questions that it does not answer. You do this for the express purpose that you might grant yourself the luxury of ignoring it. It is a deliberate contrivance on your part, supporting a deliberate act of denial. The fire tetrahedron cannot tell you if a fire was set by any particular source, it can only tell you what is materially necessary for a fire to be confirmed. But no matter what the source of the fire, the fire tetrahedron will always remain true. It does not become useless to the investigator, notwithstanding your lack of discipline. Clearly, it is not what the argument ‘does not say’ that you wish to ignore, it’s what it does say. Upright BiPed

When you have problems admitting that the genetic code is a code . . . kairosfocus

onlooker @1242:

Eric Anderson, I see you’ve returned to the discussion. I am very interested in reading your response to my 1177. Since Upright BiPed is so reluctant to answer direct questions posed by skeptics, the input of someone who supports his views could be very helpful in understanding what he is trying to say.

Well, I'm flattered by your request for a response, but I'm more of a drive-by commenter on this thread. :) I don't have the patience to deal with silly definitional battles over commonly-understood words like "arbitrary" that serve as smoke and mirrors to avoid the substantive issues. I am not purposely avoiding your #1177, just didn't notice it until now, so apologies for the late reply. You said:

You are mistaking the map for the territory. We can model transcription and translation as a code, but in fact what is actually happening is just biochemistry.

Wait. Are you saying there is no genetic code? Let's be extremely clear about this. What happens in transcription and translation is not just like a code or modeled after a code. It is based on a real code. There isn't a genetics textbook or university course on bioinformatics around that disputes this.

If you have a moment, please consider these two statements: S1. The fact that the processes of transcription and translation that result in protein synthesis involve a multistep chemical pathway justifies a conclusion of ID. S2. The ability of humans to model part of the protein synthesis process as an encoding of information justifies a conclusion of ID. Do either of these correspond to your understanding of Upright BiPed’s argument?

S1 - No. A multistep chemical pathway, in and of itself, does not justify a conclusion of ID. The stuff rotting in my compost is undergoing a multistep chemical process. There are multistep chemical processes that can happen by purely natural and material means. [Please note, this is not to say that certain multistep biochemical processes would not provide a valid inference to design. Indeed, we have good reason to infer that many of the processes taking place in organisms are intelligently designed.] S2. As I have said, your question is based on a faulty understanding of what actually exists. We're not talking about modeling things just for our convenience. We're talking about code and information that actually -- objectively and discoverably -- exists in living organisms. On your last question, I'm not sure you have understood UB's argument. His argument is quite simple and clear. Namely, we see in living organisms a semiotic system (in the very well-understood sense of the term; look up "semiotics" in the dictionary if needed); and this semiotic system is substantively the same as other semiotic systems we are familiar with. Eric Anderson

petrushka:

Languages present the best analogy I can think of for evolution. They are semiotic, their elements are discrete, their implementation is always physical. Yet they evolve. we have written histories showing their evolution in great detail.

Why would something semiotic be a good analogy unless there is something about life that is semiotic? Mung

Allan Miller:

“No-one has refuted …” amounts to “No-one has been able to persuade me that my opinion that protein translation is a ‘truly’ semiotic system is incorrect, nor that the material observation of the universality of protein translation. in modern life does not force as a logical necessity that this system needed to be devised before the OoL.”

Are you a translation denier, Allan? Mung

Bill, could you let us know when you've come up with something new? This same old same old is boring as heck and starting to make you indistinguishable from onlooker. Er. Croak. Mung

This statement is true:

Darwinian evolution doesn’t explain how replication with heritable variation in reproductive success first came into being.

Nevertheless, this argument fails:

Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function. The presence of recorded information requires very specific material conditions in order to exist. Darwinian evolution cannot be the cause of those specific material conditions.

It fails because it is built upon a false premise. Darwinian evolution is not dependent upon the presence of the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state in order to function. That claim inaccurately conveys the essential elements upon which the Darwinian process depends. Darwinian evolution is dependent upon replication and variation resulting in differential reproduction. Replication, variation and differential reproduction do not require the entire contemporary apparatus construed by UB as "the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state." Therefore a Darwinian process starting with much simpler replicators can have given rise to that apparatus. Of course, "can" denotes an hypothesis, not a conclusion. That hypothesis remains to be fully cashed out empirically. No one is claiming to have solved the Ool, or the origins of the current genetic system. And, as Lizzie stated, the origin of the simplest precursor replicators remains to be understood, as they indeed can't have arisen by a Darwinian process. What does follow is that UB's conclusion that Darwinian evolution cannot have given rise to the complex, contemporary DNA -> protein transcription processes because it necessarily requires that processes to function is founded on a false premise, and is therefore false. It does not. Reciprocating Bill

UB:

What is a “crucial element” to the search for causation is also useless to the search for causation. Perfect.

Of course an accurate characterization of the explanandum is important. We have that in the contemporary physiochemical understanding of the process. It is the additional construal, "it displays 'the entailments'/the TRI/a semiotic state" that is useless. There is nothing contradictory in that. For "It displays the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state" to improve upon the current description, testable empirical consequences must follow from that further characterization beyond those that follow from the physiochemical description. As you say, "Like, what it entailed?" The question then becomes: What follows from "the entailments"/the TRI/a semiotic state" that does not follow from the contemporary physiochemical understanding of the process? Let's ask UB: UB, what does “a semiotic state” (and therefore the presence of “the entailments” and the TRI) entail that a contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? Here are some things you have already unambiguously stated do NOT follow upon identifying the system as semiotic: - It does not follow that the system must have had intelligent or agentic origins (including living agents).? - It does not follow that the system could not have arisen by unguided means. Then, what DOES necessarily follow? What DOES follow from characterizing the transcription of DNA as “a semiotic state” that does not follow from a description of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA? Absent a response, semiotic theory is empirically useless, even at the margins. And absent a response we are. Reciprocating Bill

onlooker:

Darwinian evolution requires only heritable variation of traits resulting in differential reproductive success.

word salad. 1. Darwinian evolution requires living organisms. Mung

In genetics, a feature of a living thing is called a "trait"....Genes are made from a long molecule called DNA, which is copied and inherited across generations. DNA is made of simple units that line up in a particular order within this large molecule. The order of these units carries genetic information, similar to how the order of letters on a page carries information. The language used by DNA is called the genetic code, which allows the genetic machinery to read the information in the genes in triplet sets of codons. This information is the instructions for constructing and operating a living organism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics onlooker. information denier, gene denier, reality denier. Mung

Trait may refer to: Phenotypic trait in biology, which involve genes and characteristics of organisms:

A visible trait is the final product of many molecular and biochemical processes. In most cases, information starts with DNA traveling to RNA and finally to protein (ultimately affecting organism structure and function). This is the central dogma of molecular biology as stated by Francis Crick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_trait

Phenotypic variation (due to underlying heritable genetic variation) is a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection. It is the living organism as a whole that contributes (or not) to the next generation, so natural selection affects the genetic structure of a population indirectly via the contribution of phenotypes. Without phenotypic variation, there would be no evolution by natural selection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_character

Francis Crick's central dogma of molecular biology, ... is a statement about the directionality of molecular sequential information flowing from DNA to protein, and not the reverse.

onlooker. code denier, information denier, trait denier. Mung

onlooker:

Non sequitur. Nowhere in what you quoted has Dr. Liddle suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process.

Dr. Liddle has a prior history here at UD. I suggest you look into it. onlooker:

I note that you also failed to address the bulk of my 1210 where I explained why your attempt to apply your tortured definitions to the essential requirements of Darwinian evolution — heritable variation of traits related to reproductive success — doesn’t change the reality of what we observe in the real world.

Well, considering that you dwell in an alternate reality, that may be true for your "reality," but it's not true of ours. In ours we have only one system to consider because we observe only one system.

What you seem to be saying, in what is now clearly a deliberately obfuscatory manner, is that since protein translation is a multistep process and because different nucleotide-amino acid mappings can be imagined, the process meets your idiosyncratic definition of a “semiotic system”.

No, that's not the argument. IOW, the obfuscation is all yours. As usual. onlooker:

So what? How does this lead to a conclusion of ID?

Channeling Reciprocating Bill now are we? Run out of your own tired material? onlooker:

As already noted, Darwinian evolution requires only heritable variation of traits resulting in differential reproductive success.

Says who? What's a trait? What is required for a trait to be heritable? onlooker:

You also need to defend that claim of “irreducible complexity” with more than mere assertion.

That's easily enough accomplished, but what would be the point?

Everything we observe is known chemistry and physics.

Can you explain how one "observes" a code? Can you explain how one observes anything at all without physics and chemistry? onlooker:

I am very interested in reading your response to my 1177.

Eric probably agrees with the following: A person who denies that the genetic code is an actual code is not worth wasting any of your time on. Troll. Mung

Onlooker,

Non sequitur. Nowhere in what you quoted has Dr. Liddle suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process.

I am not responsible for your infamous inability to comprehend. If you could not grasp the positions as we lead into our exchange, then perhaps you can grasp them from her words after the exchange was over:

Dr Liddle:"You know, Upright BiPed, you are absolutely right! Darwinian evolution doesn’t explain how replication with heritable variation in reproductive success first came into being!"

Please note: Darwinian evolution >> doesn’t explain >> how replication >> came in being Upright BiPed

Eric Anderson, I see you've returned to the discussion. I am very interested in reading your response to my 1177. Since Upright BiPed is so reluctant to answer direct questions posed by skeptics, the input of someone who supports his views could be very helpful in understanding what he is trying to say. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Well, my primary point is that the transfer of recorded information in the genome requires two arrangements of matter; one which evokes an effect within the system by virtue of its arrangement (which is physiochemically-arbitrary to the effect it evokes), as well as a second arrangement which must physically establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its effect (while preserving the arbitrary relationship in the system). So whatever the source of the system, it has to be able to establish this semiotic state.

This seems to be a restatement of your fourth paragraph of word salad that you steadfastly resist clarifying. What you seem to be saying, in what is now clearly a deliberately obfuscatory manner, is that since protein translation is a multistep process and because different nucleotide-amino acid mappings can be imagined, the process meets your idiosyncratic definition of a "semiotic system". So what? How does this lead to a conclusion of ID?

And my second point is that the transfer of biological information is not only the oldest and most prodigious form of irreducible complexity on Earth, but is the very thing required for Darwinian evolution to even exist.

As already noted, Darwinian evolution requires only heritable variation of traits resulting in differential reproductive success. You can call it by as many names as you like, but just because you can model it as an information transfer process (if you'd ever summon the intellectual integrity to define terms like "information" doesn't mean you can get away with equivocating and saying "Therefore ID." You also need to defend that claim of "irreducible complexity" with more than mere assertion. Everything we observe is known chemistry and physics. Unless you can produce some objective, empirical evidence instead of your word games, your "argument" doesn't support ID in any way. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker: No scientist I am aware of has suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process. That would be foolish.

Really?

Dr Elizabeth Liddle: …my position is that IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes. Dr Elizabeth Liddle: I simply do not accept the tenet that replication with modification + natural selection cannot introduce “new information” into the genome. It demonstrably can, IMO, on any definition of information I am aware of. Upright BiPed: Neo-Darwinism doesn’t have a mechanism to bring information into existence in the first place. To speak freely of what it can do with information once it exists, is to ignore the 600lbs assumption in the room. Dr Elizabeth Liddle: Well, tell me what definition of information you are using, and I’ll see if I can demonstrate that it can.

Non sequitur. Nowhere in what you quoted has Dr. Liddle suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process. I note that you also failed to address the bulk of my 1210 where I explained why your attempt to apply your tortured definitions to the essential requirements of Darwinian evolution -- heritable variation of traits related to reproductive success -- doesn't change the reality of what we observe in the real world. Like the rest of your "semiotic argument", where it is not incoherent it is simply useless in supporting ID. onlooker

LoL!:oops: Joe

Joe, I think you're quoting Upright BiPed and attributing the quote to Running Bill. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that they are lacking in evidence, much less strong evidence. So much for the alleged skepticism. Mung

RB:

The materialist’s proposed precursor to genetic translation and recorded information is invariably a physiochemical mechanism, originating from purely physiochemical initial conditions.

Great, you still need evidence for that. And you don't have any. I would love to get any of the TSZ ilk to testify at Dover II. Then the whole world could see what a crock of stupidy they are. Joe

EA: The matter is worse, mere self replication of a molecule does not get us to the coded, step by step [algorithmic] process we see in the living cell, in both its metabolism and its reproduction. And that is without looking at the implied needle in haystack search issue. What is happening in these threads is that we re seeing an a priori imposition of materialism as what MUST explain, so any rhetorical dismissal of or distraction from counter-evidence is deemed plausible, regardless of the actual weight on merits, as they cannot allow that shadow at their door that they fear so much. That is what I have been driven to by observing cases like the prolonged debate over the meaning and usage of "arbitrary." And of course, the 6,000 word essay challenge -- remember, if they had a solid positive case on the evidence that explains OOL and OO body plans per blind chance and necessity, it would devastate design thought -- stands unanswered as the third month draws near. KF kairosfocus

UB @ 1234: Indeed. Has anyone? . . . Didn't think so. :) Eric Anderson

#1230 Has Keith provided an example of a self-replicating molecule yet? No? Upright BiPed

Bill on Terms:

The Attack: “I assert (not suggest) that you do not understand entailment, and due to your failure to grasp entailment you have constructed an argument beset with a fatal logical flaw.” The Concession: (if a specific thing only exists under specific conditions, then does its existence entail the existence of those specific conditions?) “Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment.”

Bill on Logic:

The Attack: “It does not follow from “A entails B” that “B entails A.” Therefore B cannot confirm A” The Concession: “Of course if the necessary and sufficient conditions of a phenomenon are present, then phenomenon is present – as I stated above (B is the necessary and sufficient conditions for A. Therefore B -> A.)”

Bill on Contradictions:

The Attack: “semiotic theory as you have articulated has nothing to say regarding causal origins of the phenomenon in question … and therefore has no other empirical uses” The Concession: “Of course a description of the system we wish to understand is a crucial element in the search for causes.”

:) What is a “crucial element” to the search for causation is also useless to the search for causation. Perfect. - - - - - - - - - - - What is missing from all this?? Any effort whatsoever to address and refute the evidence given in the argument. Upright BiPed

UB: "The genetic translation of nucleotide to proteins is semiotic [present coherent evidence] and will therefore require a mechanism capable of creating a semiotic state." RB: Your argument is circular! I need not even address the evidence! It’s illogical! It’s a non-sequitur! Your argument is fatally flawed whether it’s true or not! My counter-argument doesn’t need evidence! You make no observations! We should exclude your observations! You assume your conclusions! Your argument presents no conclusions! Genetics doesn’t need genes anyway! :| Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill,

By the way, do your responses to the following directly contradict one another, or do they not? RB: Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? UB: No. RB: You have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state UB: Except, of course, that it does.

This line of questioning has already been answered. You immediately minimized the answer given, and did so under the desperate lure of being able to claim a contradiction on my part. The lure of this claim is demonstrated by your constant repetition of the set up, and its value to you is in direct proportion to how exhausted you’ve become trying to escape the material evidence. We should revisit the previous exchange:

RB: Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? UB: No. RB: Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? UB: No.

From this, we see that you asked me if the semiotic argument ‘asserted’ whether any particular mechanism could or could not be the source of the semiotic state. I answered with an unambiguous “No” to both questions. The purpose of the semiotic argument is to provide a coherent inventory of the material conditions required to transfer recorded information, and to argue for the validity of those conditions. You then asked me to qualify the value of the semiotic argument in its ability to offer insight (or “constraint” as you called it) on the search for a cause of the system. You pursued this by asking me to answer a set of follow up questions:

[H]ow can the theory itself can be said to constrain the set of possible causal mechanisms? Would it not be silent on causation?

Here (again) is my answer, which you will first agree with, then immediately minimize in order to pursue your rhetoric:

UB: What else constrains the evaluation of a “set of possible causal mechanisms” if not what is necessary for them to accomplish? Are you suggesting that we should attempt to apprehend a causal mechanism without understanding what is necessary? Are you suggesting that all causal mechanisms are equal? If these are not what you are suggesting, then knowing ‘what is necessary’ helps to illuminate any proposition to follow. Do you disagree?

And here is where the deliberate obfuscation of material evidence begins. First you agree with me that understanding what is necessary is a “crucial element” in the search for a cause:

Of course a description of the system we wish to understand is a crucial element in the search for causes.

Then you immediately ignore what you’ve just said, in order to distance yourself from the implications of that understanding. The obvious step is to call into question the value of the agreement:

The question is, does adding “the system is semiotic” as defined in semiotic theory to that description add anything of value to our current physiochemical understanding?

Having selected a question to minimize your previous agreement, the time has come to lean into it, and flatly contradict yourself about the obvious usefulness of having a valid description of the system.

Given that you have unambiguously stated that semiotic theory neither requires nor excludes a particular kind of causation, I don’t see that adding “semiosis” to the description we already have adds anything of value, or aids in that search.

This, of course, is intellectual garbage. It’s empirical garbage. The materialist’s proposed precursor to genetic translation and recorded information is invariably a physiochemical mechanism, originating from purely physiochemical initial conditions. Yet, a nucleic triplet is an isolated, iterative causal structure in that same translation process, and is a rate-independent structure, not reducible to its lowest potential energy state. It evokes a specific effect within that system which it has no physiochemical relationship with, requiring a second coordinated structure within the system to establish their otherwise non-existent relationship (which is performed in temporal and spatial isolation). And as a culture warrior in a cheap tuxedo, you want to suggest that this observable material reality is unimportant to understanding the system. It’s pure anti-intellectualism. And you are a fine example of the breed. Good luck to ya. Upright BiPed

keiths:

After admitting to Reciprocating Bill that his argument doesn’t support a design inference, he is now trying to limit the damage caused by that admission.

An assertion made without a single shred of supporting evidence to back it up. No 'skeptic' has any reason to believe it, so why are you posting it at The Skeptical Zone?

Meanwhile, his argument [is] falsified by cases of information transfer that don’t require both a representation and a protocol

No, it isn't. You fail at truth, and at logic. No doubt there's a relationship between the two failures.

His argument is thus both useless and wrong.

Yet you managed to understand it, a feat onlooker hasn't even managed to perform yet. What a coterie of useless critics. Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

But does it follow from the modern synthesis that this system cannot have had as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation and differential reproduction? It does not.

But does it follow from the modern synthesis that this system must have had as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation and differential reproduction? It does not. It must follow then, that it is worthless. Wise. Croak. Mung

The theory of evolution does NOT assert that a certain class or classes of mechanisms is required to create the biological diversification observed, therefor Intelligent Design is perfectly acceptable under evolutionism’s framework. Joe

By the way, do your responses to the following directly contradict one another, or do they not? RB:

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

RB:

…You have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state

UB:

Except, of course, that it does.

Reciprocating Bill

And yet another evidence-free rant by Reciprocating Bill. It is easy to see that evos are just upset because they cannot provide any evidence that supports the claims of their position, Joe

UB:

Genes gene genetic genes genetic genetic genetic genes gene.

Well pasted (from an essay at Talkorigins penned by Larry Moran, of all people). But does it follow from the modern synthesis that this system cannot have had as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation and differential reproduction? It does not. Your definition of Darwinism to the contrary is faulty, contrived to compel a particular, assumed conclusion. UB:

If someone should suggest that a particular mechanism or a particular class of mechanism was responsible for creating a particular event, does that mechanism have to actually be capable of creating that event? If it does, (and to me, it really does seems like it should), then wouldn’t someone need to know what that event was? Like, what it entailed?

Which delivers you directly to a question I posed above: What does “a semiotic state” (and therefore the presence of “the entailments” and the TRI) entail that a contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? Here are some things you have already unambiguously stated do NOT follow upon identifying the system as semiotic: - It does not follow that the system must have had intelligent or agentic origins (including living agents). - It does not follow that the system could not have arisen by unguided means. Then, what DOES necessarily follow? What DOES follow from characterizing the transcription of DNA as “a semiotic state” that does not follow from a description of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA? For your reference, your evasion:

I didn’t play that game then. I’m not playing it now either.

Notice that, "observation of the the necessary and sufficient conditions of a semiotic state (observation of "the entailments") is entailed upon characterizing the system as a semiotic state" gets you nowhere (it never did), because the question at hand is what class or classes of causes can and cannot give rise to those "entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state" in the first place. Reciprocating Bill

RB,

RB: There is nothing in semiotic theory, and certainly nothing in Darwinism, that requires a genotype-phenotype distinction for replication, variation and differential reproduction, which define a Darwinian mechanism.

Really?

Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma; "The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)." - Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12 This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects: 1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection. 2. It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene. 3. It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution. In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists.

Just think of it...Evolution without the gene. The Modern Synthesis may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but clearly, as you point out, it was completely unnecessary. Evolution is gene free. It just happens. Let me write that down. - - - - - - - - - - - - While you are at the peak of your game, may I please ask one other question? If someone should suggest that a particular mechanism or a particular class of mechanism was responsible for creating a particular event, does that mechanism have to actually be capable of creating that event? If it does, (and to me, it really does seems like it should), then wouldn’t someone need to know what that event was? Like, what it entailed? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill, Do the facts hurt, or are they like water off a duck's back to you? We have what we have. We have the system that we have. What we don't have is some hypothetical system for which you have no evidence and thus cannot even begin to demonstrate relevance. The requirements are what they are, and they are not something else. Let us know when you can demonstrate otherwise. Bud. Croak. Mung

UB:

You mean, like a genome?

Absolutely. There is nothing in semiotic theory, and certainly nothing in Darwinism, that requires a genotype-phenotype distinction for replication, variation and differential reproduction, which define a Darwinian mechanism. Your definition of Darwinism is faulty, constructed in that way to compel a particular conclusion. That conclusion is false. RB:

But you have affirmed that nothing in semiotic theory asserts that a particular class or classes of mechanisms cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, which entailments include, “a physiochemically arbitrary relationship.”

UB:

Correct.

Thank you. There is nothing in semiotic theory asserts that a particular class or classes of mechanisms cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, which entailments include, “a physiochemically arbitrary relationship.” I think we've got that nailed down. RB:

Your response omits commentary on the fact that your statements flatly, abjectly contradict one another.

UB:

Bill, you asked if I asserted ‘what can and cannot produce a semiotic state’ in my argument. You needn’t have even asked; the text of the argument is at the top of this page, and clearly no such assertion appears there…etc. etc. etc...

Do your responses to the following directly contradict one another, or do they not? RB:

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

? RB:

…You have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state

UB:

Except, of course, that it does.

Reciprocating Bill

Reciprocating Bill,

A lengthier reproduction of your assumed conclusion. The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation, and differential reproduction – IOW, a simpler process that that is nevertheless Darwinian. The assumption is smuggled into your mistaken definition of the Darwinian process, which, without justification (either in Darwinism or in semiotic theory), declares several features that characterize modern organisms as essential components of the Darwinian process. They’re not.

You mean, like a genome?

That doesn’t change anything, in light of your statements above. Of course whatever causal account proves to be true must account for all of the essential features of the translation of DNA into proteins. But you have affirmed that nothing in semiotic theory asserts that a particular class or classes of mechanisms cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, which entailments include, “a physiochemically arbitrary relationship.”

Correct. While I articulated an argument that inventoried the material requirements for the transfer of recorded information, I did not assert that any mechanism could or could not be the source of those requirements. It’s called methodological discipline. It’s something I’ve tried to adhere to over the past 30 years as a Research Director.

Your response omits commentary on the fact that your statements flatly, abjectly contradict one another.

Bill, you asked if I asserted ‘what can and cannot produce a semiotic state’ in my argument. You needn’t have even asked; the text of the argument is at the top of this page, and clearly no such assertion appears there. You then took that kernel, and surmised that an argument that only tells us what is necessary for the system to operate (but does not identify its cause) is of no value. And when I called you on that logic, you then rightfully admitted that an accurate description of the system is actually essential to understanding it. You then immediately forgot what you has just agreed to, and have since sought a rhetorical advantage that is a) incomprehensibly stupid, and b) is circumvented by your own prior agreement. It’s a dog of a position Bill. And you’ve already killed your horse. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill:

The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation, and differential reproduction – IOW, a simpler process that that is nevertheless Darwinian.

Now you're contradicting yourself. Mung

UB:

I do not assume that the current system cannot have a precursor, and frankly, the precursor has no bearing on the observation being made. The current system is Darwinian evolution, which is based on the existence of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated into a physical system; the genotype-phenotype distinction (i.e. form recorded in an information-bearing medium, and the subsequent material production of that form). That relationship is absolutely fundamental to the operation of the system, and it requires very specific material conditions. The issue is the origination of those conditions. Hardly excluding a precursor (of some kind) to the establishment of the current system, one would be quite obviously necessary. But that precursor won’t be Darwinian evolution because until the material conditions exist which instantiate that physiochemically-arbitrary relationship, there is no Darwinian evolution.

A lengthier reproduction of your assumed conclusion. The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication, variation, and differential reproduction - IOW, a simpler process that that is nevertheless Darwinian. The assumption is smuggled into your mistaken definition of the Darwinian process, which, without justification (either in Darwinism or in semiotic theory), declares several features that characterize modern organisms as essential components of the Darwinian process. They're not. UB:

Try adding in the bit about having “the capacity to establish a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship”

That doesn't change anything, in light of your statements above. Of course whatever causal account proves to be true must account for all of the essential features of the translation of DNA into proteins. But you have affirmed that nothing in semiotic theory asserts that a particular class or classes of mechanisms cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, which entailments include, "a physiochemically arbitrary relationship." From 1001 above: RB:

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

From 1197: RB:

…You have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

UB:

Except, of course, that it does.

Your response omits commentary on the fact that your statements flatly, abjectly contradict one another. Reciprocating Bill

Now, if your duh strategy has grown as stale for you as it has for everyone else, perhaps you can ask Elizabeth or Bill what they meant by “arbitrary” when they used it.

Or Joe Felsenstein.

This program simulates the evolution of random-mating populations with two alleles, arbitrary fitnesses of the three genotypes, an arbitrary mutation rate, an arbitrary rate of migration between the replicate populations, and finite population size.

http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/popg/

And my second point is that the transfer of biological information is not only the oldest and most prodigious form of irreducible complexity on Earth, but is the very thing required for Darwinian evolution to even exist.

In other words, there's no reason to believe a simple self-replicator that can merely be imagined can serve as a stand-in for what the evidence shows is actually required. Mung

So what is your point?

Ah, I missed that. 'What is my point', you ask? Well, my primary point is that the transfer of recorded information in the genome requires two arrangements of matter; one which evokes an effect within the system by virtue of its arrangement (which is physiochemically-arbitrary to the effect it evokes), as well as a second arrangement which must physically establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its effect (while preserving the arbitrary relationship in the system). So whatever the source of the system, it has to be able to establish this semiotic state. And my second point is that the transfer of biological information is not only the oldest and most prodigious form of irreducible complexity on Earth, but is the very thing required for Darwinian evolution to even exist. Now, if your duh strategy has grown as stale for you as it has for everyone else, perhaps you can ask Elizabeth or Bill what they meant by “arbitrary” when they used it. That would be a nice change of pace. Upright BiPed

onlooker:

No scientist I am aware of has suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process. That would be foolish.

And that's a red herring.

So what is your point?

That you don't have the problems understanding the argument that you claim to have. Mung

onlooker:

This is completely incoherent.

To you maybe. Not to others.

Unless, of course, you are really just the reverse troll you appear to be, interested only in generating responses rather than actually defending your position.

That's rich, coming from you. Mung

Onlooker: No scientist I am aware of has suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process. That would be foolish.

Really?

Dr Elizabeth Liddle: …my position is that IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes. Dr Elizabeth Liddle: I simply do not accept the tenet that replication with modification + natural selection cannot introduce “new information” into the genome. It demonstrably can, IMO, on any definition of information I am aware of. Upright BiPed: Neo-Darwinism doesn’t have a mechanism to bring information into existence in the first place. To speak freely of what it can do with information once it exists, is to ignore the 600lbs assumption in the room. Dr Elizabeth Liddle: Well, tell me what definition of information you are using, and I’ll see if I can demonstrate that it can.

...and contrary to your patently ridiculous "I just can't understand" strategy, she was given an argument that she obviously understood?

Dr Elizabeth Liddle: What makes it information, I think we agreed, is when it is not the objects themselves, but a arrangement of those objects that produces the specific effects. As, for example, when a codon produces an amino acid, not because the nucleotides themselves produce this effect, but because the arrangement of the nucleotides produce this effect.

Gasp! She actually unsderstood "arbitrary"??

Dr Elizabeth Liddle: Like the arbitrary mapping of the symbol “b” to the sound “buh”. Any symbol would do. So the mapping is arbitrary.

You continue to make a fool of yourself, Onlooker. You should have taken Dr Liddle's lead, and ditched the transparent "I just can't understand" treatment. She was less desperate, and apparently a great deal wiser.

Dr Elizabeth Liddle: I claimed that ID claims that information (by any definition ID proponents wish to use) cannot be generated by Darwinian processes, or indeed Chance and Necessity, can be demonstrated to be false. Dr Elizabeth Liddle: I freely conceded that I could not make good on your challenge. My original claim assumed a different definition of information from the one you have asked me to use.

As I told you both here and at TSZ, I simply do not care what you think. On the larger stage, where truth and reason matter, you have no presence whatsoever. You fall below the threshold. Your rhetorical victory is at hand. Upright BiPed

onlooker:

Now that you’ve succeeded at keeping people replying to you for this long, ...

Actually people like you that need attention are responding just to see yourself post and to hopefully grab some attention. UB doesn't care if tards like you respond or not. I am sure he would rather have some educated people respond however he doesn't control that. Joe

onlooker:

No scientist I am aware of has suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process.

So they say it arose by design? Joe

Upright BiPed,

1200 comments and 101 days, with no rebuttal on the merits.

1200 comments and 101 days, with no serious attempt by you to make your word salad any more coherent. I believe this is a good point to repeat keiths' assessment of your behavior:

Every time I summarized your argument, I a) asked you whether my summary was accurate, and b) invited you to amend my summary if it was not. You refused each time, even when others (who also found your prose impenetrable) repeatedly asked you to do so. Why is that? If your argument is as strong as you claim, why do you work so hard to prevent your audience from understanding it? When I have a good idea, I actually want other people to understand it. When they ask questions, I answer them. If I see that they misunderstand me, I clarify things. Why wouldn’t I? Why would I try to hide my good idea? You, on the other hand, seem ashamed of your argument and afraid of what might happen if you stated it clearly and explicitly. Instead of clarifying, you obfuscate. Instead of answering questions straightforwardly, you evade them. You complain that others are misrepresenting your position, but when they ask you for correction, you refuse to give it. Then you declare victory, saying that no one has defeated your argument! For you, the entire exercise seems to be more about saving face than it is about communicating your ideas. In fact, you appear to be deliberately avoiding communication precisely in order to save face. Why should anyone take your argument seriously if you are so ashamed of it? Why are you afraid to communicate it in a way that your audience will actually understand?

Now that you've succeeded at keeping people replying to you for this long, I hope your need for attention is somewhat sated and you can start acting like someone who has enough confidence in his position to show some intellectual integrity by answering direct questions. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function.

Darwinian evolution requires heritable variation of traits related reproductive success. Whether you want to warp your ambiguous at best definitions to apply the term "recorded information" to that doesn't change the what is actually happening.

The presence of recorded information requires very specific material conditions in order to exist.

Here you take one more step away from what is actually happening, focusing more on your "recorded information" model than on reality. Darwinian evolution requires heritable variation of traits related to reproductive success. It does not require all of the complexities we observe in modern organisms.

Darwinian evolution cannot be the cause of those specific material conditions.

No scientist I am aware of has suggested that the first replicator arose from a Darwinian process. That would be foolish. So what is your point? Like your "semiotic argument", this doesn't seem to support ID unless you're repeating the common creationist argument from incredulity. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Your entire involvement here has been an attempt to massage over the unambiguous definitions given in the argument, in the hopes that you can make them malleable for a counter-argument.

No, my entire involvement here has been an attempt to get you to convert your word salad into a coherent argument. Essential to the achievement of that goal is to get agreement on clear definitions of your terms as you use them in your argument. The record shows that you have been actively resistent to such clarification. Some of your opponents have suggested that this demonstrates your lack of understanding of the scientific method in particular and rational debate in general. I disagree. I believe you know exactly how important clear definitions are to being able to discuss an argument, which is why you refuse to provide them. Your fear of being disproven is greater than your commitment to intellectual honesty. I invite you, yet again, to prove me wrong.

#4 is a coherent statement and doesn’t need "detangling".

Your paragraph 4:

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

This is completely incoherent. You are using terms differently from how you had previously agreed they were defined. I ask yet again: What exactly are you trying to say in that paragraph? Please define your terms clearly and concisely and separate your premises into single, also concise, points. Unless, of course, you are really just the reverse troll you appear to be, interested only in generating responses rather than actually defending your position. onlooker

RB's "logic" The theory of evolution does NOT assert that a certain class or classes of mechanisms is required to create the biological diversification observed, therefor Intelligent Design is perfectly acceptable under evolutionism's framework. Joe

Hi Alan, And we are still wondering why evolutionists do not provide testable hypotheses along with supporting evidence for evolutionism. You do realize that if you ever do such a thing that ID will fade away amd the semiotic argument will be moot. So what is it, exactly, that is preventing you and your ilk from doing such a thing? Joe

My apologies to UD if the length of this thread has become a bandwith hog

Still wondering why someone, (Axe, Gauger,Abel, Dembski, Marks) doesn't pick up your ball and run with it? If the few you have managed to get to look at your "thesis" aren't impressed out of sheer obtuseness, why not publicise it more widely? Why not a new thread, in the mean time? Alan Fox

...noticing the laughing man at the front of the courtroom, one juror quietly says to the other "but wouldn't it still be required to actually do what has to be done" and the other says "yeah, regardless". Upright BiPed

From 1001 above: RBl:

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

From 1197: RB:

…You have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state

UB:

Except, of course, that it does.

LOL! Reciprocating Bill

And keiths is still on his evidence-free rant... Joe

toronto:

UBP’s semiotic theory is about as airtight as a balloon knitted out of wool.

Then it is very telling that you can't refute it, ie find any leaks.

I cannot understand why, after everything that was pointed out to him, he still believes he has won the day.

Well that is due to the fact that everything you have pointed out has been either a strawman, false or just plain stupid. Joe

1200 comments and 101 days, with no rebuttal on the merits.

pathetic Mung

1200 comments and 101 days, with no rebuttal on the merits. (My apologies to UD if the length of this thread has become a bandwith hog). Upright BiPed

Mung,

Thank you for your presence and contribution here at UD.

Thank you Mung, that was nice to hear. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill at 1194,

UB: Let’s put it on the table and discuss it. If it exists, then let’s assess its plausibility. RB: My reply to this deserves it’s own comment, which I will supply somewhat later. Later… RB: Plausibility is a slippery notion, as it is highly unlikely that what you find plausible and what I find plausible are the same.

“I’m not saying, cuz you won’t believe me” is the response that needs its own special attention? Your reponse is entirely useless in an empirical discussion, is it not? It may be difficult to imagine a more anemic rejoinder. No worries though. Making an assertion, then being completely incapable of following it up, has become a rather endearing trademark where you are concerned. :)

May 2012, RB: The question is, “can a process other than the necessarily semiotic transfer of recorded information result in an arrangement of matter to represent an effect within a system, as well as an arrangement of matter to establish the relationship between the representation and the effect within that system? We say yes. You don’t believe it (so what?).

The bottom line is that you need a mechanism. You don’t have one. Hiding this fact behind the threat that your mechanism might be judged as to whether or not it accomplishes the result is hardly convincing. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill at 1191,

You repeat this often. Yet a finer specimen of a circular argument generating an assumed conclusion you will never find.

Ah, assertions of circularity; the favorite bastard tool of the lost cause. There is nothing circular about noting that the transfer of recorded information requires specific material conditions, and there is nothing circular about noting that Darwinian process cannot be the source of those material conditions if it itself requires them in order to exist.

The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication and variation.

I do not assume that the current system cannot have a precursor, and frankly, the precursor has no bearing on the observation being made. The current system is Darwinian evolution, which is based on the existence of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated into a physical system; the genotype-phenotype distinction (i.e. form recorded in an information-bearing medium, and the subsequent material production of that form). That relationship is absolutely fundamental to the operation of the system, and it requires very specific material conditions. The issue is the origination of those conditions. Hardly excluding a precursor (of some kind) to the establishment of the current system, one would be quite obviously necessary. But that precursor won’t be Darwinian evolution because until the material conditions exist which instantiate that physiochemically-arbitrary relationship, there is no Darwinian evolution.

I see no basis in semiotic theory for that claim…

Then you haven’t addressed the material reality of the system, or you (as is historically the case) simply take the system for granted and proclaim that a “simpler” system can transform from physical determinism to arbitrary relationship and don’t indulge yourself with worrying about the details.

…and there is certainly nothing in Darwinism that asserts it. Your repetition of this canard certainly establishes nothing, due to its circularity.

And you don’t seem to have a case for circularity. First you claim circularity, but in place of making your case, you switch to asserting that an unsupported assumption has been made. But no such assumption has been made; it was a statement of material fact which you cannot refute with contrary evidence or reasoning. If you’d like to propose a mechanism whereby a physically determined system transforms to a non-physical relationship, then get after it.

Very amusing. A similar non-response was addressed by Lizzie at the time … But now we know that she was right, because you have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Bill, I think you are out of your element. This is not a courtroom drama where you wrap up the observations of evidence into a strategic positioning statement in order to influence the personalities of certain members in the jury. If I had assumed any conclusions in my argument, then the artifacts of that assumption would be there and you would properly attack them. But they aren’t there. So in response, you’ve latched on to the opposite, and claim that my argument doesn’t exclude any possibilities. You conveniently exclude from your positioner that the originating mechanism will require the capacity to establish a semiotic state – a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system. Every time you repeat your claim, you effectively say “to hell with the material evidence”. This is truly a weak position for an avid materialist such as yourself. Try adding in the bit about having “the capacity to establish a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship” to your positioning statement, and let us see if it maintains the same visceral punch you assign to it now. Does the semiotic argument establish any discriminating criteria for the origin of the system? How about the fact that it has to establish a set of relationships which are not based on the material involved? Materialist cannot legitimately narrow their eyes and mumble something about evolution, only to take it all for granted. The material product of the system is not produced from the material constraint of the system; proteins are not made from nucleotides, and the systematic relationship that connects them has discernible and coherent material requirements that didn’t exist until they appear in the record as the basis of living systems. You’ll need an arrangement of matter that evokes a specific effect within a system, where the arrangement is physiochemically-arbitrary to that effect, and you’ll need an arrangement of matter that establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its effect. And this arbitrary component of the system must be preserved, because without that, there will not be any genotype, and there would be no way to translate it. These critical requirements didn’t just poof into existence, Bill, no matter how many jurors you wish to distract.

But now we know that she [EL] was right, because you have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state

Except, of course, that it does.

Lizzie’s assertion that semiotic theory does not exemplify an argument from ID that successfully excludes the possibility of Darwinian origins of such systems was correct.

She disagrees with you, and she is correct on the matter.

Elizabeth Liddle (Jan 2012): You know, Upright BiPed, you are absolutely right! Darwinian evolution doesn’t explain how replication with heritable variation in reproductive success first came into being!

Upright BiPed

And aren’t you ashamed that a couple of toads are more scientifically literate than you?

Budweiser toads? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser_Frogs Mung

Reciprocating Bill- If you aren't even going to try to support your position then why even bother criticizing ID seeing that the way to the design inference is directly through your position, meaning the way to proper way to criticize it is actually by supporting your position? And aren't you ashamed that a couple of toads are more scientifically literate than you? Joe

UB:

Let’s put it on the table and discuss it. If it exists, then let’s assess its plausibility.

Plausibility is a slippery notion, as it is highly unlikely that what you find plausible and what I find plausible are the same. How then to assess plausibility? If your definition of "plausible" is "That which UB and the Budweiser toads (Joe and Mung) find it plausible," I'll pass. Reciprocating Bill

Alan Fox:

Critics of semiotic theory (those few that are even aware of upright biped’s oeuvre) are not putting much effort into criticism because, I suspect, they have a hard time taking it seriously.

LoL! The critics have been proven to be immature jerks who are upset because their position has nothing but their cowardice for support. So no one takes tjem seriously. Joe

RB:

I see no basis in semiotic theory for that claim, and there is certainly nothing in Darwinism that asserts it.

Darwinism is an untestable fantasy. The semiotic theory is evidence for Intelligent Design because of our knowledge of cause and effect relationships, ie sceince. That is what has you confused because you don't know anything about science. And your screaming "contradiction" doesn't make it so. Joe

UB:

Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function. The presence of recorded information requires very specific material conditions in order to exist. Darwinian evolution cannot be the cause of those specific material conditions. To say that it can, is to say that a thing that does not yet exist can cause something to happen.

You repeat this often. Yet a finer specimen of a circular argument generating an assumed conclusion you will never find. The conclusion assumed is that the current system cannot have as a precursor a simpler form of replication and variation. I see no basis in semiotic theory for that claim, and there is certainly nothing in Darwinism that asserts it. Your repetition of this canard certainly establishes nothing, due to its circularity. UB:

There is absolutely no reason for you to suggest that this comment is false. It was made in a conversation with Dr Liddle and reflects the dialogue of that conversation. You may wish to disagree with the reasoning, but be that as it may, you cannot say that the reasoning was not provided and argued for.

Very amusing. A similar non-response was addressed by Lizzie at the time:

Ah. If by “made their case” you mean “put a case forward”, then I readily retract my claim. Of course I agree that a case has been made, and should have worded that in a more bulletproof manner. I meant it in the sense of “I do not believe you have made your case” rather than “You have not attempted to make a case”. Of course the case has been “made” in the sense that it has been put forward. I do not believe it holds water.

UB:

That is insulting to the evidence, Dr Liddle – to me, to the recording of this conversation, and to those who might have followed along.

But now we know that she was right, because you have now affirmed it. It does NOT follow from semiotic theory either that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state (UB: "Correct"), or that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state (UB: "Ditto.") Lizzie's assertion that semiotic theory does not exemplify an argument from ID that successfully excludes the possibility of Darwinian origins of such systems was correct. UB:

As I have already stated, this comment was validated by the fact that she was unable to provide even a conceptual mechanism (and eventually withdrew her claim).

Another non-sequitur. "The observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process" is flatly contradicted by your affirmation that "It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state." That contradiction is independent of any given individual's ability to suggest such a mechanism. One of those statements must be false. Take your pick UB:

Let’s put it on the table and discuss it. If it exists, then let’s assess its plausibility.

My reply to this deserves it's own comment, which I will supply somewhat later. Reciprocating Bill

Whatever else may be said of the criticisms, they are shallow.

Critics of semiotic theory (those few that are even aware of upright biped's oeuvre) are not putting much effort into criticism because, I suspect, they have a hard time taking it seriously. If you want to get the attention of the scientific community, make some effort at communication. Publish a paper. Send it to scientists. Put some clothes on the emperor. Otherwise, waste no more time in self-delusion and move on. Alan Fox

Upright BiPed, Here's what kills me about these so-called critics. Not a single one of them stops to consider just what is required to instantiate information in a material substrate and why those requirements are as they are. Whatever else may be said of the criticisms, they are shallow. Thank you for your presence and contribution here at UD. Mung

Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided processes cannot give rise to such systems.

It does not follow from evolutionary theory that unguided processes can give rise to any system, period. Therefore, evolutionary theory is useless. Mung

RB:

Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided processes cannot give rise to such systems.

There just isn't any POSITIVE evidence for it and no reason to think unguided processes could give rise to such systems. Might as well claim erosion carved the Sphynx. However guys RB is correct, Upright Biped's semiotic theory is totally useless to evolutionists, who blatantly ignore its implications and disgrace science with their very existence. Joe

RB, re: "The [following] are false statements..."

UB: IDists have succeeded in demonstrating that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes.

Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function. The presence of recorded information requires very specific material conditions in order to exist. Darwinian evolution cannot be the cause of those specific material conditions. To say that it can, is to say that a thing that does not yet exist can cause something to happen.

UB: You have also been given the reasoning as to why ID proponents claim that these observations are artifacts of design and cannot be assigned to purely material processes.

There is absolutely no reason for you to suggest that this comment is false. It was made in a conversation with Dr Liddle and reflects the dialogue of that conversation. You may wish to disagree with the reasoning, but be that as it may, you cannot say that the reasoning was not provided and argued for. And by the way, if you waiting to be satisfied only by a mathematical proof of an event that happened 4 billion years ago somewhere on the surface of this planet, then you have no business discussing scientific issues, particularly these.

UB: the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process.

This is also a comment made directly to Dr Liddle. As I have already stated, this comment was validated by the fact that she was unable to provide even a conceptual mechanism (and eventually withdrew her claim). Also, as I have stated, I am happy to open the claim up to you as well. Do you have a conceptual mechanism for the transition from a purely deterministic system to one based on physiochemically-arbitrary relationships? Let’s put it on the table and discuss it. If it exists, then let’s assess its plausibility (obviously we are not interested in mere bafflegab). If not, then you can join those who also cannot provide even a conceptual unguided process. Upright BiPed

Hi Bill, When can we expect your long-awaited much-ballyhooed refutation? Should we expect that it will likewise be empty of actual content? Mung

More empty metacomments. UB:

the question quickly arises as to just how willing you are to take pitiful and/or otherwise ridiculous positions in order to accomplish your goals.

The position I take above is that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. UB: "Correct." Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that only design, agency, intelligence etc. can give rise to such systems. I also take the position that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. UB: "Ditto." Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided processes cannot give rise to such systems. And I take the position that statements such as the the following, which capture your aspirations for semiotic theory, are therefore false:

You have also been given the reasoning as to why ID proponents claim that these observations are artifcts of design and cannot be assigned to purely material processes

IDists [from context: semiotic theory an an instance of ID] have suceeded in demonstrating that what they consider the signature of intentional design [from context: semiosis] is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes.

the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process.

The above are false statements, because they assert that semiotic theory bars unguided processes as possible causes for the phenomena in question, when it patently does not - as you repeatedly affirm above. With that, semiotic theory is shown to be a "bridge to nowhere," useless with regard to the key questions that motivate this debate. It does not follow that the span is in fact sound - but it does follow that a debate vis that soundness is a pointless waste of time, because soundness in a bridge to nowhere still gets you nowhere. Perhaps semoitic theory yet has something to contribute to research into the large questions you mention - has empirical entailments above and beyond that which is entailed by our current physiochemical understanding of the translation of DNA into proteins - but you either can't or won't state what those might be. So it remains useless at the margins as well. Reciprocating Bill

(Oct 8) Onlooker, Your entire involvement here has been an attempt to massage over the unambiguous definitions given in the argument, in the hopes that you can make them malleable for a counter-argument. This has already been discussed here and here among other places. Unfortunately for you, your strategy has been transparent for the entire duration of your stay. You are now left with nothing but to return here and use the repetition of your attempts as an opportunity to sling more insults. It’s all you have left. As I have already pointed out, it’s a terrible way to have to protect your worldview.

#4 is a coherent statement and doesn’t need "detangling". Once again, you make derogatory assertions, but refuse to articulate any problem. Upright BiPed

onlooker:

We can model transcription and translation as a code, but in fact what is actually happening is just biochemistry.

Yeah Eric. And we can model codes as codes, but that don't make em codes. And the genetic code can have all the features of a code, but that don't make it a code either. A person who denies that the genetic code is an actual code is not worth wasting any of your time on. Mung

onlooker:

Just when I think we’re making progress and that you are finally willing to answer questions about your argument, you respond with your 1159 and dent my optimism.

An optimistic troll. How sweet. Spend another 1200 posts trying to define 'arbitrary' in a way that's not arbitrary.

D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter that constitutes information.

lol Here, try this: D1'. Representation: An arrangement of matter that represents information representing matter. Mung

Upright BiPed:

One can presume that if my argument had concluded an arbitrary relationship was indeed unnecessary and undemonstrated by the system, you would not be so eager to position that result as meaningless.

That would be safe bet. Mung

onlooker:

If you have a moment, please consider these two statements: S1. The fact that the processes of transcription and translation that result in protein synthesis involve a multistep chemical pathway justifies a conclusion of ID. S2. The ability of humans to model part of the protein synthesis process as an encoding of information justifies a conclusion of ID. Do either of these correspond to your understanding of Upright BiPed’s argument?

Nope, keep fishing... Joe

onlooker:

We can model transcription and translation as a code, but in fact what is actually happening is just biochemistry.

How can it be just biochemistry when there isn't any biochemistry involved in selecting what codon represents which amino acid? So either onlooker is a liar or incredibly ignorant. Joe

Eric Anderson, Welcome to the conversation!

Does your "semiotic argument" boil down to the idea that the genetic code we see is one of a number of potential such codes, therefore ID?

Almost, but not quite right. I'd say the fact that the genetic code is a code is indicative of design. It's not the fact that it is one among a number of potential codes (each of which would indicated design), but the fact that it is a code at all.

You are mistaking the map for the territory. We can model transcription and translation as a code, but in fact what is actually happening is just biochemistry. If you have a moment, please consider these two statements: S1. The fact that the processes of transcription and translation that result in protein synthesis involve a multistep chemical pathway justifies a conclusion of ID. S2. The ability of humans to model part of the protein synthesis process as an encoding of information justifies a conclusion of ID. Do either of these correspond to your understanding of Upright BiPed's argument? onlooker

Upright BiPed, Just when I think we're making progress and that you are finally willing to answer questions about your argument, you respond with your 1159 and dent my optimism. You agreed with these definitions: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences and you accepted my definition of "information" D2: D2. Information: The form of a thing. But then when we got to your paragraph 4:

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

It became clear that those definitions do not help untangle whatever meaning you have hidden so deeply in that incoherent tangle of words. So, I ask again, what exactly are you trying to say in that paragraph? Should I change D1 to: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter that constitutes information. onlooker

RB:

And I am also stating that utterances such as “the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process” (and several others to the same effect reproduced above) are perforce false.

LoL! It's "false" just cuz RB sez so! Yup all science so far, RB! Joe

Bill, your horse is dead. It's time to get off. Throwing our wits at each other has grown unproductive and boring. For all your compositional skills, you simply cannot demonstrate that the premises of my argument are false, nor can you demonstrate that the conclusions do not logically follow from those premises. All you can do now is position your failure as something that it's not; namely a technical victory. You are on the wrong side of the material evidence, and your resources have played out. My ability to keep highlighting this fact is superior to your ability to defend an unsupported position. This is not arrogance on my part, its simply a function of the evidence. You are quite obviously an intelligent person; if you had someting more than "gee golly gus" then you would have already played it. If you do not stop this, then I will. I have no interest in endlessly carrying on this kind of an exchange. Upright BiPed

RB,

You may change “most charitable possible reading” to “most favorable possible reading” and the meaning of my post remains unchanged.

The argument is unambiguous to a competent reader anyway, and in your case, it is more of a test of ideological integrity rather than reading comprehension. In any case, it means that in order to transfer recorded information, an irreducibly complex core of two arrangements of matter is required, with each of these material objects having (as a matter of universal observation and logical necessity) a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up (i.e. they instantiate a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship into a physical system which is necessary for that physical system to function).

The problem that is evident in the above vis causation is not an assumed conclusion, but the absence of any conclusion at all with respect to the causal questions that animate this debate.

When you’ve lost an argument and are either unwilling to admit it, or are merely treading water in order to save face, the question quickly arises as to just how willing you are to take pitiful and/or otherwise ridiculous positions in order to accomplish your goals. What “animates this debate” is understanding the history of life and mankind. Has it not occurred to you that in order to address such a stupendous question as “how did this all happen” we might need to understand what is materially necessary for it to come about? Shall we kid ourselves that you are somehow unaware that this is exactly how (just about) every significant advancement in human knowledge has ever come to pass? Of course, the position you’ve taken clearly underscores why your anxiety begins to glow in the dark. Gone are the promises of a chest-pounding refutation of my argument. You are now merely happy to point out that the biggest question in the history of the human race remains unanswered, and you are all too happy to use that triviality as a means to ignore what has been demonstrated to you to be fundamentally necessary for it to happen. One can presume that if my argument had concluded an arbitrary relationship was indeed unnecessary and undemonstrated by the system, you would not be so eager to position that reesult as meaningless. Feel free to deny this (then ask me again what value these observations provide which is not equaled by merely ignoring them).

It follows from YOUR position, and hence YOUR prior metaphysical assumptions, that semiotic theory neither requires intelligent origin nor bars origins by unguided means. You’ve affirmed that several times above. This will remain true regardless of my metaphysical assumptions, as it flows from yours.

Quite frankly, I think you'll have a heck of a time convincing anyone that your demonstrated desire to exclude all observations made by my argument stems from my desire to demonstrate those same observations. And enthusiastically highlighting the fact that my metaphysical assumptions produced a coherent argument which presumes neither an agent nor a material origin of life is something that I take as a methodological compliment.

UB: Will excluding the observations negate the material requirements? RB: Regardless of the fate of the “material requirements,” it will remain the case that semiotic theory neither requires intelligent origins, nor bars unguided origins.

Your response did not answer the question, so your ongoing refusal to address the real world conseqences of your denial remains fully intact. Obviously, your denial of material evidence does nothing whatsoever to change that material evidence. Your position falls significantly short of methodological naturalism, or materialism, or any enlightenment which might be presumed to stem from the two. Of course, this fact will have no impact on the trajectory of your comments, which only goes to underscore the conclusion that your are an true ideologue who has wilfully insulated himself from any inconvenient material evidence.

No. I am stating that given the most favorable possible reading of semiotic theory – YOURS – it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, and therefore a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. It therefore follows that semiotic theory per se does not exclude unguided origins of such systems.

Again, thank you for noticing that I produced an argument which cannot be said to be metaphysically biased, while at the same time forming a coherent explanation which you cannot refute. The fact that this observation (on your part) represents the centerpiece of your rebuttal, is an unexpected (but thoroughly welcomed) surprise.

And I am also stating that utterances such as “the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process” (and several others to the same effect reproduced above) are perforce false.

I am interested to know what the “other” comments I've made which you say are necessarily false (and would like to know why you see them as 'necessarily' so). As for the comment you quoted; that comment was made specifically to Dr Elizabeth Liddle when she claimed to be able to demonstate the rise of recorded information transfer within a simulation of Darwinian processes. My comment was validated when she unambiguously recanted her claim. Perhaps you can do better. Do you have a conceptual mechanism for the transition from purely (deterministic) chemophysical interactions to a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship driving the unambiguous function demonstated by living organisms? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill:

I am systematically stating that given the most favorable possible reading of semiotic theory – YOURS – ...

Bill's intimate knowledge of semiotic theory is astounding. Mung

onlooker:

D3. Arbitrary: Without direct physical connection between two artifacts.

FAIL! Arbitrary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allosteric_regulation Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

I am systematically stating that given the most favorable possible reading of semiotic theory... Well, a systematic statement eh? I guess that settles it. When can we expect your refutation?

Mung

UB:

I love the self-serving inflection you place on offering a “charitable reading” of my argument.

You may change "most charitable possible reading" to "most favorable possible reading" and the meaning of my post remains unchanged. To wit: I am systematically stating that given the most favorable possible reading of semiotic theory – YOURS – it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, and therefore a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. We know that because you’ve told us so. I’m also stating that one needn’t accept that most favorable reading to see what conclusions inescapably flow from it.

I did not assume any conclusions in formulating my argument.

The problem that is evident in the above vis causation is not an assumed conclusion, but the absence of any conclusion at all with respect to the causal questions that animate this debate. Semiotic theory neither requires intelligent origin, nor bars unguided mechanisms. You said so.

Following your prior metaphysical assumptions, your position is to summarily exclude these universal observations from any consideration whatsoever – regardless of what class of mechanism could or could not create them. You wanted them out from the very start.

It follows from YOUR position, and hence YOUR prior metaphysical assumptions, that semiotic theory neither requires intelligent origin nor bars origins by unguided means. You've affirmed that several times above. This will remain true regardless of my metaphysical assumptions, as it flows from yours.

Will excluding the observations negate the material requirements?

Regardless of the fate of the "material requirements," it will remain the case that semiotic theory neither requires intelligent origins, nor bars unguided origins.

In real world terms, are you not suggesting that one needn’t accept material observations if they conflict with one’s metaphysics (i.e. in the way that this argument conflicts with your metaphysics)?

No. I am stating that given the most favorable possible reading of semiotic theory – YOURS – it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, and therefore a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. It therefore follows that semiotic theory per se does not exclude unguided origins of such systems. And I am also stating that utterances such as "the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process" (and several others to the same effect reproduced above) are perforce false. (Even if subject and verb agree to disagree.) Reciprocating Bill

RB at 1165, I love the self-serving inflection you place on offering a “charitable reading" of my argument. It must comfort your intellect to think of the higher platitudes in one’s character, when in fact your promised refutation (now removed of all its initial bravado) has been reduced to the rather anemic satisfaction of simply pointing out that I didn’t assume any conclusions in my argument. (RB in May: “Your argument works only if you assume your conclusion.”) We've apparently come a long way (as it were) yet if your counter-argument slows any further, I’m afraid it may vapor lock and stall out altogether. Let’s look at what you’ve written now:

I am systematically stating that given the most charitable possible reading of semiotic theory – YOURS – it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, and therefore a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. We know that because you’ve told us so.

As I have already stated numerous times, I did not assume any conclusions in formulating my argument. To do so would not only demonstrate improper methodology, but it is a logical flaw which I had no intention of making. Again, I find it amazing that you see this as a point in your favor. But let us not forget what your real position has been. Following your prior metaphysical assumptions, your position is to summarily exclude these universal observations from any consideration whatsoever - regardless of what class of mechanism could or could not create them. You wanted them out from the very start. It’s as if you know full well that they present a virtually intractable obstacle to a material origin, and it quite obviously serves you better to be done with them from the outset as to be forced to incorporate them as the valid material requirements of the system. And in that particular vein, I asked you a very pertinent question which you have repeatedly refused to answer:

UB: And finally, the unanswered question: Will excluding the observations negate the material requirements?

What is your answer to this question? The only valid answer is “no”. A mechanism that has no empirical support whatsoever will still have no empirical support whatsoever. Such a mechanism provides no scientific grounds to believe it to be true, and that status will remain unchanged even if one ignores the material reality.

I’m also stating that one needn’t accept that charitable reading to see what conclusions inescapably flow from it.

In real world terms, are you not suggesting that one needn’t accept material observations if they conflict with one’s metaphysics (i.e. in the way that this argument conflicts with your metaphysics)? In other words, is it your position that proper scientific discipline is maintained while minimizing coherent observations as a “charitable reading” in order to exclude them from consideration? You have thus demonstrated that your personal metaphysics trump material evidence; they trump universal observation and logical necessity as well. I suppose I should thank you for your candor on the matter. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill- or is it just Repeating Bill:

I am systematically stating that given the most charitable possible reading of semiotic theory – YOURS – it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, and therefore a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship.

Science deals with POSITIVEs, RB. We know what mechanisms can produce semiotic states/ physiochemically-arbitrary relationships. And we have told you what those include. OTOH you cannot produce any evidence for any other class of mechanism capable of producing semiotic states/ physiochemically-arbitrary relationships. People have noticed. Also science does not deal with absolutes, ie proof. And that leaves the door open for some future researcher to come along and make a name for herself by overturning a long-standing scientific fact. Geez RB, it's as if you are scientifically illiterate and dang proud of it. Joe

Mung:

Those are your definitions? From the OP: 1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system... So, it looks to me like you just lifted them from the OP and that UPB accepted his own definitions.

As I stated in 1034, above: "I don’t find observations at the top of the page. I do find a definition: 'A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system.'" Reciprocating Bill

UB:

Are you haphazardly suggesting that you now accept the universal observation that a set of physiochemically-arbitrary relationships are a fundamental requirement in the origin of Life on Earth, and given that such systems only stem from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. agents), agent origin is a viable explanation based on universal observation?

Why, I'm glad you asked. I am systematically stating that given the most charitable possible reading of semiotic theory - YOURS - it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, and therefore a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. We know that because you've told us so. I'm also stating that one needn’t accept that charitable reading to see what conclusions inescapably flow from it. Reciprocating Bill

I was being sarcastic :) I can't say onlooker's comment deserved even sarcasm, but I couldn't resist. Mung

Thank you Eric. I would also add that the conclusion of the argument given at the top of this page clearly appears at the end of the argument given at the top of this page. Nowehere in that conclusion does the word "therefore" or the phrase "therefore ID" appear in that conclusion. Such additions are tacked on solely for petty rhetorical benefit, with the intention of minimizing the content of the argument - having been unable to refute the argument on its actual merits. Upright BiPed

Mung @1161 (quoting onlooker):

Does your “semiotic argument” boil down to the idea that the genetic code we see is one of a number of potential such codes, therefore ID?

Almost, but not quite right. I'd say the fact that the genetic code is a code is indicative of design. It's not the fact that it is one among a number of potential codes (each of which would indicated design), but the fact that it is a code at all. In other words, it is not the existence of this particular code selected from a number of potential codes that gives the design inference, but the existence of a code selected from an essentially infinite number of nonsense arrangements. Eric Anderson

onlooker:

Does your “semiotic argument” boil down to the idea that the genetic code we see is one of a number of potential such codes, therefore ID?

See, that's wasn't so hard now, was it. 1156 posts and you finally get it. Mung

onlooker:

Previously you accepted my definition of “representation” D1: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. and you accepted my definition of “information” D2: D2. Information: The form of a thing.

Those are your definitions? From the OP: 1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. 2. ... information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) So, it looks to me like you just lifted them from the OP and that UPB accepted his own definitions. Any why wouldn't he? All this time and effort just to get him to accede to his own definitions? Are you kidding? And all this while you've been claiming his terms are not defined and his argument is incoherent. Yes, we can see the troll. The troll is back.

D3. Arbitrary: Without direct physical connection between two artifacts.

FAIL!

I utterly fail to see any difference between the two sentences.

Yes, you fail. Mung

from Oct 8th

Onlooker, Your entire involvement here has been an attempt to massage over the unambiguous definitions given in the argument, in the hopes that you can make them malleable for a counter-argument. This has already been discussed here and here among other places. Unfortunately for you, your strategy has been transparent for the entire duration of your stay. You are now left with nothing but to return here and use the repetition of your attempts as an opportunity to sling more insults. It’s all you have left. As I have already pointed out, it’s a terrible way to have to protect your worldview. - – - – - – - – - – - – - Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. Protocol: An arrangement of matter that physical established the otherwise non-existent relationship between a representation and its effect. Materially arbitrary: The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system). Evoke: The representation can evoke an effect within a system, but because it is materially arbitrary to that effect, it cannot determine what that effect will be – the effect is physically determined by the protocol alone. - – - – - – - – - – - – - These two arrangements of matter are ubiquitous in any transfer of recorded information, and they must operate as described in order to accomplish what must be accomplished – the transfer of form via a material medium. These objects are both a logical necessity and a universal empirical observation. You cannot refute them, and your unending attempts to redefine them (with added ambiguity) have grown stale, even on your own side of the fence.

Upright BiPed

onlooker,

I utterly fail to see any difference between the two sentences. I am happy that you finally have directly addressed my request that you define one of the essential terms in your argument.

Great! Now we can dispense with the transparently self-serving idea that you need to rewrite my clarification of “materially arbitrary” (given 96 days ago) so that you can understand it. So will you be giving your long awaited rebuttal now? No? How surprising. Upright BiPed

onlooker:

Nothing we have observed in transcription and translation involves anything other than pretty well understood chemistry and physics.

LoL! By that "logic" nothing we have observed with computer operations involves anything other than pretty well understood physics and quantum mechanics. No need for a designer then. Joe

Upright BiPed, In response to your 1107:

You may certainly wish to think that pure chemistry results in coding and translation, but you would be ignoring specific material facts. First off, there is no physical law that determines the sequence structure of the nucleic triplet. The triplet is an entirely rate-independent causal structure within the system. Secondly, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by the forces of pair binding (which were in operation at the beginning of the process). Instead, the specificity of the amino acid is determined in spatial and temporal isolation by the physical structure of the aminoacyl synthetase. This establishes the necessary arbitrariness which is required in order to code and transfer information. It also means that you must get from the triplet to the appearance of a specified amino acid without a direct physical connection between the two. You cannot get there by physical law alone. It requires the arbitrary coordination of the system in order to function.

So? Does your "semiotic argument" boil down to the idea that the genetic code we see is one of a number of potential such codes, therefore ID? Nothing we have observed in transcription and translation involves anything other than pretty well understood chemistry and physics. Where exactly do you see a need for your designer? onlooker

Upright BiPed, I finally have some free time after catching up from the holiday travel and work that piled up. I apologize for the delay in replying, but the real world must take precedence. From your 1069:

this means that the protein that ultimately is synthesized after transcription produces mRNA is arbitrary with respect to the original DNA since there is no direct physical connection between the two.

It’s wonderful that you have so clearly articulated the essential characteristic you’ve been asking for. The relationship between the representation and the effect it produces within the system is "materially arbitrary". D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. "no direct physical connection between the two".

I utterly fail to see any difference between the two sentences. I am happy that you finally have directly addressed my request that you define one of the essential terms in your argument. Imagine the progress we could have made had you done so the first time I asked.

Will you be posting your long-awaited rebuttal now?

We've made some minimal, slow progress, but your "argument" is still so much word salad and as such it requires no rebuttal. Let's see where we are now, though. We now have three definitions and a premise: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences D2. Information: The form of a thing. D3. Arbitrary: Without direct physical connection between two artifacts. P1. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. This gets us as far as paragraph 2 of your original post. Let's look at paragraph 3:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

I previously attempted to clarify this as another premise: P2. An arrangement of matter that constitutes information, as the word is used in this argument, is not connected by any direct physical mechanism to the thing to which it refers. To better reflect your preferred word choice, I'll rephrase this slightly as: P2. An arrangement of matter that constitutes information, as the word is used in this argument, has no direct physical connection to that to which it refers. There is also another premise from your parenthetical remark: P3. An arrangement of matter that constitutes information, as the word is used in this argument, cannot be the same as that to which it refers. I suspect that these two premises are actually definitions, but we can work out those details after we've got more clarity on your meaning. Onward to paragraph 4!

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

This is really confusing. You seem to be equating "an arrangement of matter that constitutes information" with the word "representation". Previously you accepted my definition of "representation" D1: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences and you accepted my definition of "information" D2: D2. Information: The form of a thing. Those don't help untangle the meaning of your paragraph 4. What exactly are you trying to say in that paragraph? Should I change D1 to: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter that constitutes information. onlooker

RB,

UB: Since you do not incorporate the observations within the argument into (at minimum) an open question, but instead insist that the material observations be excluded altogether RB: Quite the contrary...

Are you haphazardly suggesting that you now accept the universal observation that a set of physiochemically-arbitrary relationships are a fundamental requirement in the origin of Life on Earth, and given that such systems only stem from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. agents), agent origin is a viable explanation based on universal observation? Have you now adopted a neutral metaphysic, and therefore rescinded your earlier call to exclude all such material evidence from consideration? Or is "quite the contrary" just a gratuitous non-sequitur? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill:

Quite the contrary. Incorporating the most charitable possible reading of your argument – namely YOURS – it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Willful ignorance is not a good position to argue from RB. So why do you continually do so? In any case, all examples of semiotic systems stem from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. agents), and there are no examples whatsoever of semiotic systems stemming from anything else.- Upright Biped Joe

Well Bill, you've had almost as much to offer as onlooker (practically nothing) and in far fewer posts. Congratulations. Less with less. Commendable. Mung

UB:

Having to concede the reality of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship as the driving force behind Life on Earth isn’t exactly the resounding rebuttal you had in mind, is it Bill?

A non-sequitur. Actual sequitur: Even given the most charitable possible reading of semiotic theory - YOURS - it does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. We know that because you told us so: RB:

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

Perforce, even under that most charitable possible reading it does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship (because a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship is one of the so called "entailments.") This compels the further conclusion that it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided events (one such class) cannot have created a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. One needn't accept that charitable reading to see what conclusions inescapably flow from it if you do. But you do (it's your reading), which means you are stuck with those conclusions.

So the question is; does it follow that semiosis actually rises from unorganized matter?

Follow from what?

Since you do not incorporate the observations within the argument into (at minimum) an open question, but instead insist that the material observations be excluded altogether

Quite the contrary. Incorporating the most charitable possible reading of your argument - namely YOURS - it still does not follow that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. We know that because you told us so. Reciprocating Bill

RB: Does it follow from the presence of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the system?

Having to concede the reality of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship as the driving force behind Life on Earth isn’t exactly the resounding rebuttal you had in mind, is it Bill? In any case, all examples of semiotic systems stem from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. agents), and there are no examples whatsoever of semiotic systems stemming from anything else. So the question is; does it follow that semiosis actually rises from unorganized matter? If your answer to this is “yes”, then on what empirical grounds is this conclusion drawn? Of course, you’ve already answered these two questions. Your answer to the first question is “yes” (i.e. you have actually advocated the entire exclusion of these material facts from any consideration) and your answer to the second question is endless doctrinaire obfuscation. This, of course, takes us back to your individually-preferred metaphysical assumption, as stated earlier:

Since you do not incorporate the observations within the argument into (at minimum) an open question, but instead insist that the material observations be excluded altogether, you necessarily put yourself into the metaphysical position that agency is a phenomenon which began singularly on earth. There is, of course, no material support for this position, and it has no advantage (logical or otherwise) over those who incorporate the observations to whatever degree they do.

Upright BiPed

From 1139:

Allan Miller: “Semiotic systems exist to communicate something from one intelligent agent to another. So either this isn’t one or someone has picked a very arcane communication medium. Or, we’ve broadened the term ‘semiotic’ to include non-communicative systems, so we can kid ourselves that by doing that, we have proven that agencies (who definitely make the inter-agency communicative kind) must also have made the non-communicative kind”.

When a CNC machine uses numeric control to produce a specified effect, is it a non-communicative system? Wiki: “Numerical control (NC) is the automation of machine tools that are operated by abstractly programmed commands encoded on a storage medium” …these objections are silly. Perhaps Allan can answer this question: If in one instance we have a thing that is a “genuine” symbol system, and in another instance we have something that just acts like a symbol system, then surely he can observe the material operation of the two systems, and point out the fundamental distinction between the two?

The venerable Creationist art of Definology

Allan has had ample opportunity to show the descriptions given in the argument are flawed in some way. He has been unable to do so. It is hardly convincing at this point to start simply making assertions to accomplish what he was unable to accomplish by reason. Upright BiPed

From #1142,

I prefer to say “I don’t know” when I don’t know to making something up (or accepting at face value what someone else has made up). There are lot’s of questions to which we don’t know the answer. The origin of life on Earth is one such.

OoL is not an open question in science, and it hasn’t been for at least two to three generations, if not much longer. The only open question is ‘how did it happen’ by an unguided process. The possibility of a guided origin never makes it past the purely ideological policing that stagnates origins science and education. This is a demonstrable fact, despite the material evidence and reasoning that a guided origin is a coherent empirical argument (including the one at the top of this page). The fact you must stoop to wildly false statements is illustrative of your position. You have no inclination whatsoever to say “I don’t know” (or you would have said it). So why pretend you do? Upright BiPed

Cabal:

Care to tell us a little about how the designer solved any of those major problems?

Which designer? Mung

I had this at the back of my mind and found I had saved the link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22392-first-life-may-have-survived-by-cooperating.html There are several source of science news available and I look them up every day. Cabal

The following videos have a fairly good overview of the major problems facing any naturalistic Origin Of Life scenario:

Care to tell us a little about how the designer solved any of those major problems? Cabal

Yes, Alan. WRT biology and evolution there is quite a bit that we do not know. And that is what teachers should tell students, as opposed to lying to them by telling them accumulations of random variations didit. And please, do continue to search. The more we uncover the better the design inference looks. Also being exposed to advanced technolgy allows the students of today to see the incredible parallels between that technology and biology. That should make them more skeptical of the nonsense their teachers are feeding them. And when their questions remain unanswered, your house of cards will crumble. Your only hope is that the world ends in a month. That is the only way your position will go out on top... Joe

Alan Fox:

But I find the interesting question (and the hardest for science to answer, I suspect) is where is the point that evolutionary processes can kick in...

You don't see the fundamental difference between the OOL question and this one? You have a theory of evolution, and yet you don't even know the minimal conditions required for evolution to occur. And yet the constant refrain is, all that's needed is a self-replicator, even though no one knows just what sort of self-replicator would be required. Mung

Sorry, mung, your scatter gun technique caused me to miss your question before but you asked me:

[AF]: But I find the interesting question (and the hardest for science to answer, I suspect) is where is the point that evolutionary processes can kick in.

A valid question. Explore it. Doesn’t it give you even the slightest pause that you don’t yet know the answer?

I prefer to say "I don't know" when I don't know to making something up (or accepting at face value what someone else has made up). There are lot's of questions to which we don't know the answer. The origin of life on Earth is one such. We may never know. Doesn't mean we cannot continue to search for answers, which is why scientific research continues in all sorts of directions that may not be immediately productive. Serendipity! Alan Fox

Yes, Bill, Semiotic Theory is not like Darwinism. It's not based upon the assumption that if you cannot possible show that it could not possibly happen that such a system could not possibly be constructed via slight intermediate steps therefore the theory must be true. Get over it. If it were like Darwinian theory, you'd be arguing that it is circular. UPB avoided all the circularity nonsense, so you have nothing left be to say but so what. Not a convincing rebuttal. Mung

UB:

Bill, a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship is a mandatory aspect of the system. It cannot function without it. Your rebuttal of this fact is based on simple denial. You are welcome to it.

Does it follow from the presence of a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the system? Hint: Your answer is "no," as you have already affirmed that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/TRI/a semiotic state, one of which "entailments" is a mandatory physiochemically-arbitrary relationship. Reciprocating Bill

Allan Miller:

Semiotic systems exist to communicate something from one intelligent agent to another.

So their existence is not in dispute. And we ought then to be able to say something of what is required to instantiate such a system, what is required for one to exist. Care to weigh in?

So either this isn’t one or someone has picked a very arcane communication medium. Or, we’ve broadened the term ‘semiotic’ to include non-communicative systems, so we can kid ourselves that by doing that, we have proven that agencies (who definitely make the inter-agency communicative kind) must also have made the non-communicative kind.

That's a lot of ors. Going rowing? Or your reasoning could be flawed, God forbid!

The venerable Creationist art of Definology.

LOL! You're the one defining a semiotic system in terms of it's purpose as a system, "to communicate something from one intelligent agent to another." May as well define the system as designed by intelligent agents too while you're at it. What does it take for a communication system to not be arcane? (Ask those affected by hurricane Sandy.) Drums? Smoke signals? Lanterns? What is it about semiotic systems that requires that they must be created by an intelligent agent? Are physics and chemistry not sufficient? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

It’s in the Constitution?

Yes. It's right there next to your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of stupidity, if that's what makes you happy. Mung

RB:

What I will say is the following: - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. (UB: “Correct.”) - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. (UB: “Ditto.”)

Correct. It follows from all observations and experiences that only a certain class of mechanism, ie agency involvement, can produce a semiotic system to the exclusion of other certain classes of mechanism, ie blind and undirected processes such as natural selection and genetic drift. It's called science Bill, that is what has you so confused. Joe

Empty Reciprocating Bill comments aside, we still have empty Alan Fox comments, empty onlooker comments, empty keiths comments, empty Allan Miller comments, empty omtwo comments, empty toronto comments, empty Mark Frank comments, empty Zachriel comments, empty Robin comments, empty Joe Felsenstein comments and empty Elizabeth Liddle comments. My apologies to all the other empty commenters that I did not name. Joe

Bill, a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship is a mandatory aspect of the system. It cannot function without it. Your rebuttal of this fact is based on simple denial. You are welcome to it. Upright BiPed

Not that I expect it to make a whit of difference:

It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system.

It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Suppose, if you will, that your mechanical philosophy (for that's what it is) leaves something to be desired. Mung

Upright BiPed:

When the horse is dead, get off.

Horse meat. Yummy. Mung

Mung November 22, 2012 at 10:29 pm Allan Miller on November 22, 2012 at 10:34 pm said: No sooner said than done, lol. Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

It follows that many of your earlier characterizations of the conclusions that follow from semiotic theory (quoted above) were either unsupported or false.

Well you see Bill, that's just doesn't follow from your premises, so there's no reason for anyone to take it seriously. Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

Empty metacomments aside (regarding which see mine at 938, above)...

Says the master of the empty meta-argument. Mung

Empty metacomments aside (regarding which see mine at 938, above), UB:

apparently you will say anything at all.

What I will say is the following: - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. (UB: “Correct.”) - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. (UB: “Ditto.”) - It follows that many of your earlier characterizations of the conclusions that follow from semiotic theory (quoted above) were either unsupported or false. (UB: *silencio.*) Reciprocating Bill

It's pretty amazing, really. After all this time Reciprocating Bill finally comments on the content of the argument itself, and still gets it wrong. Mung

It seems that our friends need to go back to the needle in the haystack challenge. Seem to me they need to go back to How to be a True Skeptic school. They are giving skepticism a bad name.

Mung

H'mm: It seems that our friends need to go back to the needle in the haystack challenge. As in a haystack 1,000 LY on the side. KF kairosfocus

Bill, over at TSZ you argued for two months that I had used the word “entailment” in an improper fashion, and that until I corrected this dastardly misuse, you needn’t even address the evidence of the argument. When you were eventually forced to concede that the existence of recorded information indeed “entailed” the necessary material conditions of recorded information, I took a very modest position. I simply thanked you for the acknowledgement and was prepared to leave it at that. But that wasn’t good enough for you. You then came back by promoting the completely ridiculous question of ‘what any of this had to do with ID’. I was embarrassed for you. Now, here at UD, you are doing the same thing again. You are so determined to characterize the semiotic argument as meaningless that apparently you will say anything at all. It. But no matter how you’d like to spin it, it is hardly meaningless to have it demonstrated that a physiochemically-inert relationship is the proximate source of life on Earth. You’ve led off with the unsustainable idea that the semiotic argument is silent on causation, and when shown that it is not, you hadn’t the good sense to just leave it alone, but instead returned with your indefensible screed at 1119. Its as if I told you that since the fire tetrahedron cannot determine who or what set a fire, then rubbing two cubes of ice together is suddenly back in play. Give it a rest Bill. When the horse is dead, get off. Upright BiPed

...get to work and demonstrate semiotic systems can arise via blind and undirected processes.

They'll deny that semiotic systems exist. Or they will try to dumb down the definition, claiming a system is semiotic even when it lacks the properties of a semiotic system. Mung

the theory is silent on cause but we the people know semiotic systems only arise via agency involvement. Allan Miller:

Have you checked them all?

Scientific inferences do not require that anal-retentive detail. And it also leaves the falsication door open. So have at it- get to work and demonstrate semiotic systems can arise via blind and undirected processes. Until then all you have is whining. Joe

omtwo:

So the theory is silent on the cause so Joe inserts his “designer” on the basis of, well, nothing at all!

Spoken like a true idiot: So to recap- the theory is silent on cause but we the people know semiotic systems only arise via agency involvement. And THAT is why the existence of semiotic systems is positive evidence for Intelligent Design. Not that omtwo will understand any of that.

Joe, so what stops “the cause” being something other then your “Intelligent Designer”?

The same thing that stops unguided processes from constructing Stonehenge, an automobile or an airplane.

If you don’t know the cause on what basis can you claim it’s anything at all in particular?

Knowledge of cause and effect relationships- you know the stuff of science. Oh that's right, you don't know anything about science. Joe

So to recap- the theory is silent on cause but we the people know semiotic systems only arise via agency involvement. And THAT is why the existence of semiotic systems is positive evidence for Intelligent Design. Not that RB will understand any of that. toronto:

Joe, you have just stated that Upright’s theory is useless.

Cuz an impotent imp like you sez so? Strange that you can't make a case to support your tripe. Joe

Pathetic whining:

Semiotic theory is silent on the central causal question that animates this debate: whether the system in question originated by unguided means, or requires agency/design/intelligence.

The THEORY is silent on cause but everyone knows that unguided processes are not up to the task and that all semiotic systems come from agency involvement. IOW RB obvioulsy is just another scientifically illiterate evo. RB if you ever find an unguided process producing a semiotic system, that will be the first. So to recap- the theory is silent on cause but we the people know semiotic systems only arise via agency involvement. And THAT is why the existence of semiotic systems is positive evidence for Intelligent Design. Not that RB will understand any of that. Joe

UB:

The concept of the “fire tetrahedron"…cannot identify who or what started the fire (i.e. its origin). Likewise, the four entailments listed in the semiotic argument...cannot tell you the origin of the system. However, (contrary to your assertion) in neither of these cases is the knowledge of these systems suddenly “silent” on causation.

Semiotic theory is silent on the central causal question that animates this debate: whether the system in question originated by unguided means, or requires agency/design/intelligence. Moreover, semiotic theory is unlikely to contribute even at the margins to further empirical investigation into the the origins of the translation of DNA into proteins without articulating what “a semiotic state” entails that the contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not. Information you seem loathe to supply. So, as you have affirmed: - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. (UB: "Correct.") - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. (UB: "Ditto.") Now you wish to claim that you've been saying this all along, and your above affirmations are a non-event.

you already know full well that the semiotic argument I have presented doesn’t address the source of the semiosis,

Let us examine this claim further, by contrasting what you now affirm with some of your previous statements: You now affirm: - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. But in previous statements:

I am an IDist. I have demonstrated that the presence of recorded information within DNA (considered a major signature of design) is not also the result of Darwinian processes.

Which we now know to be false. It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/this-is-stunning/#comment-395941

This entire conversation was based on my claim that material forces “don’t have a mechanism for bringing information into existence in the first place”. Remember?

We now know that the claim upon which "this entire conversation was based" cannot have been founded in semiotic theory. It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/news/james-shapiro-bill-dembski-asks-the-question-weve-all-been-dreading/#comment-414989

You see, if you had been able to actually produce the rise of information, that would have had a profound impact on me (and maybe others as well). It would have shown that recorded information really can emerge from unguided material processes…

We now know that nothing in semiotic theory per se renders that conclusion a surprise, as it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

It is now a recorded fact on this forum (over the course of three or four threads) that you…have also been given the reasoning as to why ID proponents claim that these observations are artifcts of design and cannot be assigned to purely material processes

Reasoning we now know to be mistaken, as it does not flow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/human-evil-music-logic-and-himalayan-dung-heaps/#comment-388810 Lizzie stated:

…”my position is that IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes.”

You demanded a retraction of this statement, citing your semiotic theory as a successful ID argument that bars a Darwinian explanation. But we now know: - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. (UB: "Correct.") - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. (UB: "Ditto.") Therefore, it is false that semiotic theory is an instance of an ID theory that demonstrates that this signature of ID (semiosis) cannot also be a signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes. Indeed, we now know that semiotic theory is silent on the question of design, and is therefore not even a theory of ID, much less one that bars Darwinian processes. And again: UB:

Just as an acknowledgment. Your retraction of this claim:

“IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes”

…would logically result in this statement:

IDists [from context: semiotic theory an an instance of ID] have suceeded in demonstrating that what they consider the signature of intentional design [from context: semiosis] is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes.

But we now know that semiotic theory provides no basis from which to request of Lizzie a retraction of her claim. It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/this-is-stunning/#comment-395958 And, of course:

You withdrew because the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process, and you know it.

We now know that "the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process" is not a conclusion of semiotic theory. It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/news/james-shapiro-bill-dembski-asks-the-question-weve-all-been-dreading/#comment-414989

…It’s amazing that you consider this a win for your defense.

Is it? Reciprocating Bill

Allan Miller:

Well no, that’s the same error UBP is making. “Darwinian evolution requires the system [protein translation] in order to exist”, quoth he. An assertion completely without foundation.

Allan Miller:

As far as Darwinian evolution kicking in, it requires only a system with a particular property: the property of making copies of the system.

An assertion completely without foundation. Mung

Alan Fox:

But I find the interesting question (and the hardest for science to answer, I suspect) is where is the point that evolutionary processes can kick in.

A valid question. Explore it. Doesn't it give you even the slightest pause that you don't yet know the answer? Allan Miller:

As far as Darwinian evolution kicking in, it requires only a system with a particular property: the property of making copies of the system.

Two unsubstantiated assertions. You have no evidence that this is the case, and you have no strong evidence that this is the case. You fail as a skeptic. Define the system. Unless and until you define the system you have zero evidence that your claim ought to be believed. If all copies are identical, what is the basis for selection? Mung

Allan Miller:

I still favour the RNA world, or something like it, though I know plenty of biochemists laugh at that notion, because of the properties of RNA. But the problems with protein are no less – particularly a plausible mechanism that allows repetitive production of useful sequence.

Listen to yourself. You prefer the RNA world hypothesis. Why? They laugh at it because there is no evidence for it. Because it is implausible. Not believable. Because it has no strong evidence to suggest it is true. Mark Frank:

All it [skepticism] amounts to is the demand for strong evidence before believing anything.

Allan Miller believes in the RNA World hypothesis because he has strong evidence for his belief. Laughable. At best you can offer that the protein first world has it's own problems. How is that evidence in favor of your preference? Mark Frank:

It is not sufficient that other explanations are considered to be inadequate.

Unless you want to believe in the RNA World. Pitiable. And you call yourselves skeptics? Mung

Toronto:

The recorded information you’re talking about can come about in at least two ways: 1) The information could have been recorded into living things by an intelligent designer in order to guide their development towards a goal

How can that information can be recorded in a physical system? Are there no pre-requisites? How could that information be recorded in a physical system that does not already exist?

2) The information could be a record of the successful modifications of that information in living things, as they adapt to their environment, in a non-guided by a conscious intelligence process that has no goal.

How can that information can be recorded in a physical system? Are there no pre-requisites? How could that information be recorded in a physical system that does not already exist?

Your “semiotic theory” describes both.

No, it doesn't.

How does your theory tell them apart?

Maybe we can answer that after you've explained how the system came into existence. Mung

keiths:

But your “theory” isn’t just useless, it’s wrong.

Well, if it's wrong, then it's not useless.

The transfer of information via self-replicating molecules shows that your claim is false.

I missed the part where you recorded some information and then transferred it. And your claims say nothing about ID, therefore they are useless. Mung

keiths:

Bill is pointing out that by your own admission, the “semiotic theory of ID” — even if we assume it is correct — says nothing about ID. It’s useless.

It says nothing about ID, therefore, it is useless. From now on, I shall apply this standard to everything you write. What I find absolutely astounding is that purported "skeptics" seem to know nothing at all about reasoning. But of course, any real skeptic would be skeptical of reason itself. You all at TSZ are a bunch of FAKE skeptics. Mung

OMTWO:

But as it stands he might as well write it on a brick and throw it into the sea for all the impact it’s had or going to have.

We've already discussed floating bricks. Mung

Thanks to all the participants. Have a Happy and Safe Thanksgiving. I'm out for the holidays... :) Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed:

This establishes the necessary arbitrariness which is required in order to code and transfer information.

That's just an inconvenient fact. So we'll ignore it. Mung

So after all of the blah, blah, blibiddy, blibiddy, blah over on TSZ about how not being able to post here hinders their ability to refute our arguments, this is what we get? Really? BWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHHAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA Joe

Then please tell us the physics and chemistry that determined which codon represents which amino acid. Alan Fox:

There are plenty of books, internet resources etc that can inform you on the stereo-chemistry and other details of protein synthesis.

Really, Alan? Please tell me how any of those resources have anything to do with what I am talking about. This should be good seeing that I am not talking about protein synthesis. I want to know the physics and chemistry that determined which codon represents which amino acid. Not one word about proteins nor protein synthesis. Do you understand English, Alan? Or or you just obtuse? And more importantly, do you really think that your childish antics are going to convince people that evolutionism is useful? Joe

Alan,

Codon anticodon pairing and replication is governed by hydrogen bonding; physics and chemistry, transcription and translation same physics and chemistry.

The trivial basis of this objection was answered in my previous post. You may certainly wish to think that pure chemistry results in coding and translation, but you would be ignoring specific material facts. First off, there is no physical law that determines the sequence structure of the nucleic triplet. The triplet is an entirely rate-independent causal structure within the system. Secondly, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by the forces of pair binding (which were in operation at the beginning of the process). Instead, the specificity of the amino acid is determined in spatial and temporal isolation by the physical structure of the aminoacyl synthetase. This establishes the necessary arbitrariness which is required in order to code and transfer information. It also means that you must get from the triplet to the appearance of a specified amino acid without a direct physical connection between the two. You cannot get there by physical law alone. It requires the arbitrary coordination of the system in order to function. Upright BiPed

Alan,

Pattee’s expertise is not biochemistry.

The weakest retort of all is to attack the person in place of the content of their work. You claim that a heralded professot emeritus of physics has no place addressing physical chemistry, while saying nothing of his work itself. Great.

The point at issue is whether the biochemical reactions involved in protein synthesis can be considered “semiotic”.

It most certainly is, and the first step in answering that question is to understand, at the material level alone, what it means to be semiotic. You’ve declared an answer to that question without taking this manifest step. The final step is to take that model and compare it to the material process of protein synthesis, and see if the model concurs with what is observed. It does. But it is too late for you - you've already determined that it doesn't.

But there are no signs and signals involved in the biochemical reactions that occur when a specific amino acid is attached to its appropriate tRNA by a specific aaRS.

Again, you simply make this assertion without doing the work of understanding what it means to be semiotic from a purely material perspective.

It’s all physics and chemistry.

This is perhaps the second weakest retort of all. All material things in a material universe operate under the physiochemical laws of matter. When an ant produces a pheromone to communicate information to the other ants, that entire transfer of information is accomplished by “physics and chemistry”. When you read a letter from a friend, that entire transfer of information is accomplished by “physics and chemistry”. When a bee dances in front of the other bees in order to inform them of the correct direction to fly for food, that entire transfer is accomplished by “physics and chemistry”. No material thing is exempt from this, and consequently nothing is explained by it. So your suggestion that a thing ‘cannot be’ (simply because it follows the same physiochemical laws as everything else) does nothing but erect an impediment to further understanding... ...or protects a foregone conclusion. Upright BiPed

Then please tell us the physics and chemistry that determined which codon represents which amino acid.

There are plenty of books, internet resources etc that can inform you on the stereo-chemistry and other details of protein synthesis. Do you want me to post some links? Would you follow them? Would you read them? Try this resource Alan Fox

Alan Fox:

Well it seems UB confirms he is making an “irreducible complexity” argument for the origins of DNA translation. A problem for OOL research rather than evolutionary theory, I guess.

You guess wrong as the OoL directly impacts any subsequent evolution. If living organisms were designed then they were designed to evolve/ evolved by design. The ONLY way the blind watchmaker has sole dominion over evolution is if the blind watchmaker brought forth life from inanimate matter.

And still a default argument.

Only if you redefine the word "default". Joe

there aren’t any biochemical reactions that determine what codon represents which amino acid. Alan Fox:

Codon anticodon pairing and replication is governed by hydrogen bonding

Non-sequitur and irrelevant. Strange that you just don't care that you are dishonest.

physics and chemistry, transcription and translation same physics and chemistry.

Then please tell us the physics and chemistry that determined which codon represents which amino acid. Failure to do so is evidence tat you are lying, as usual. I am not baffled by your dishonesty. Rather it is expected as you are so desperate because you have nothing else.

What else do you think is going on in a living cell? Try to be specific.

Information processing, just as what goes on inside of computers. Computer programs are not reducible to physics and chemistry and there isn't any evidence tat living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry. Joe

@ mung

Information processing.

In an uncoded way I don't disagree.

There is, however, theoretical work which shows it could not have evolved from a simpler code.

On the other hand, there is quite a body of work in progress on the problem.

Do you think “code” is a misnomer?

No. It's a word. :) Alan Fox

Alan Fox:

What else do you think is going on in a living cell? Try to be specific.

Information processing. Lots of it.

There is no theory that fully explains the origin and evolution of the genetic code.

There is, however, theoretical work which shows it could not have evolved d from a simpler code. Do you think "code" is a misnomer? Mung

Do you think “codon” is a misnomer?

Words tend to be "frozen accidents". If the name sticks, like "junk DNA" we are stuck with it. So long as people define or clarify their usage, communication is not affected. "Codon" is fine. "Genetic code" is fine. We are referring to triplets or longer sequences of DNA. Promulgation of ideas has to go through the imperfect conduit of language. It requires an effort by both parties to a conversation to convey ideas but it is often worth the effort. Alan Fox

Alan Fox:

Codon anticodon pairing...

Do you think "codon" is a misnomer? Mung

Joe writes:

...there aren’t any biochemical reactions that determine what codon represents which amino acid.

Codon anticodon pairing and replication is governed by hydrogen bonding; physics and chemistry, transcription and translation same physics and chemistry. The specificity of aaRSs for the appropriate tRNA and amino acid is physics and chemistry. I'm baffled by your assertion. Truly baffled! What else do you think is going on in a living cell? Try to be specific. Alan Fox

Alan Fox:

The fact that it is almost universal across all extant and extinct life (where tested) suggests it was established very early on following life’s origin on Earth.

Yeah, right when the design of life was implemented here. Joe

OK Alan, please tell us about these biochemical reactions involved that determined the genetic code. Alan Fox:

There is no theory that fully explains the origin and evolution of the genetic code.

Nice non-sequitur. Alan, YOU made a claim that obvioulsy you cannot support.

However, protein synthesis, where a peptide chain sequence is determined by the RNA sequence being translated is a panoply of biochemical reactions.

So what? That does nothing to support your claim as there aren't any biochemical reactions that determine what codon represents which amino acid. Joe

OK Alan, please tell us about these biochemical reactions involved that determined the genetic code.

There is no theory that fully explains the origin and evolution of the genetic code. The fact that it is almost universal across all extant and extinct life (where tested) suggests it was established very early on following life's origin on Earth. But, of course, there is no way of answering your question; nobody knows. Maybe if life elsewhere (or its remains) turns up the focus will change.

Codons do NOT become amino acids via biochemical reactions, Alan.

Of course you are correct, Joe. Codons do not become amino acids at all! However, protein synthesis, where a peptide chain sequence is determined by the RNA sequence being translated is a panoply of biochemical reactions. Genetic DNA is the catalyst, acting as a template for the messenger-RNA. It is unchanged in the process and does not "become" anything else. Alan Fox

omtwo:

All Upright has to do is use his “idea” and produce something, some novel information or insight.

Darwin didn't do that. Evolutionism doesn't do that.

Darwin had an idea. Darwin went out and supported that idea.

Liar. Joe

Allan Miller:

Well no, that’s the same error UBP is making. “Darwinian evolution requires the system [protein translation] in order to exist”, quoth he. An assertion completely without foundation.

Allan, your entire position is completely without foundation. And it is very noticeable tat yiou cannot produce any evidence to refute UB's argument. Imagination and promissory notes don't cut it in science.

Darwin himself was unaware of the details of molecular biology, and the principle of NS never did hinge upon them.

Darwin couldn't test his claims and natural selection has never been observed to do anything. IOW Darwin's claims have failed the test of time.

Either Life-without-protein never existed, or it is now extinct. UBP simply declares the former, without evidence

Again, your entire position is without evidence. So perhaps you should stop whining and get to work. Joe

Ala Fox:

The point at issue is whether the biochemical reactions involved in protein synthesis can be considered “semiotic”.

OK Alan, please tell us about these biochemical reactions involved that determined the genetic code.

But there are no signs and signals involved in the biochemical reactions that occur when a specific amino acid is attached to its appropriate tRNA by a specific aaRS.

What a clueless jerk. What biochemical reactions determined the genetic code Alan? What biochemical reactions determined which codon REPRESENTS which amino acid? Codons do NOT become amino acids via biochemical reactions, Alan. So now it is clear that Upright Biped's argument is not incoherent, rather Alan' Fox's thinking process (if you can call it that) is incoherent. Joe

Actually, its appropriate humility in the face of a material evidence, Alan. You should give it a try.

Something for all discussants to take on board (with a pinch of scepticism!). ;) Alan Fox

Pattee's expertise is not biochemistry. The point at issue is whether the biochemical reactions involved in protein synthesis can be considered "semiotic". You write:

This [the physical structure of the aaRS] is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

But there are no signs and signals involved in the biochemical reactions that occur when a specific amino acid is attached to its appropriate tRNA by a specific aaRS. It's all physics and chemistry. Alan Fox

I apologize if I have given offence. You obviously suffer from “mote and beam” syndrome

Actually, its appropriate humility in the face of a material evidence, Alan. You should give it a try. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill,

These establish that semiotic theory is devoid of relevance to the central question that animates this debate, e.g. origins through agency (intelligence, design, etc.) versus origins through natural (unguided) processes. It is silent on causation.

This is just simply untrue. You keep making these statements that are rather like empty buckets you haul around, hoping that they might contain something of interest, while at the same time using your doctrinaire prose to disguise the simple fact that they are entirely empty. The relevance of the semiotic argument has already been explained to you using the very similar example of the “fire tetrahedron”. I’ll give it to you again. The older “fire triangle” stated that fire required three material conditions (i.e. a heat source, an oxidizer, and a fuel) as the necessary ingredients of a fire. But as it turns out, the mere existence of those three ingredients by themselves were not sufficient to indicate the presence of fire. What was required was the addition of a unique identifying process. The fire tetrahedron closed that loop by adding the specific process of combustion to the three material conditions; which when present, was sufficient to indicate the presence of fire. Likewise, there are three material conditions which are necessary for the transfer of recorded information (i.e. a material representation, a material protocol, and a materially-arbitrary relationship between the representation and its effect). The mere presence of these three conditions cannot confirm the existence of recorded information transfer, yet with the addition of a unique identifying process, they can. That unique identifying process is the production of unambiguous function, as seen throughout the living kingdom. Together, these three material conditions in the presence of this unique identifying process can confirm the transfer of recorded information. While the concept of the “fire tetrahedron” can confirm the existence of a fire, it cannot identify who or what started the fire (i.e. its origin). Likewise, the four entailments listed in the semiotic argument can confirm the transfer of recorded information; but it cannot tell you the origin of the system. However, (contrary to your assertion) in neither of these cases is the knowledge of these systems suddenly “silent” on causation. As stated earlier in this thread regarding the tetrahedron and a confirmed instance of a fire; if a fire investigator knows that a fuel and heat source (i.e. specific material conditions) are required for fire, then that investigator will know that the cause of that fire will have had to provide those specific requirements if they are not locally accounted for otherwise. If they can be accounted for, then the investigator will have no reason to search further in order to identify them. So to say that the fire tetrahedron is “silent” on causation is simply not true. The knowledge of the tetrahedron is the backbone of the investigation. The semiotic argument plays an identical role in a confirmed instance of information transfer; it provides a model of the material conditions which must be met (in order to explain what must be explained). Specifically regarding DNA processing (even if we set aside the question of a source of the material components involved) we can observe the system in operation. We can account for the material conditions present in the representations and protocols, and we observe the unambiguous function as a result of the system. However, we have no mechanism to account for the arbitrary relationship which exists between the representations and their effects, nor for the coordination of the protocols in specifying those effects. So unless you can document something to the general effect that “under unguided condition X, and in the presence of A, B, and C, a relationship will form between A and C mediated by B”, then it is completely obtuse and ignorant to suggest that the semiotic argument has nothing interesting to say (“devoid of relevance”) regarding causation. Your attempts to belittle the argument (having been unable to refute it) are hereby noted. :) Upright BiPed

Perhaps he will return an insult me some more.

I apologize if I have given offence. You obviously suffer from "mote and beam" syndrome :) Alan Fox

Bill, Thank you for the admission that the argument has no evidentiary or logical flaws. As for your revamped killer question, you've always placed too much count on it. Of course, you were forced to by late July. The answer remains what it has always been. By the way, will your conception of the unguided transition from a system of pure mechanisl determinism to system of arbitrary relationships remain forever a secret? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill and Alan Fox, Everyone notices that you cannot/ have not produce any evidence for unguided processes producing semiotic systems. I know that you don't care that you come off as little whiney cowards, but you do. Do you think that helps your cause? Joe

#1081

AF: If you or anyone could point out where the representations and protocols are in protein synthesis, there might be something to rebut. Mung: This has already been done in this very thread, and probably over at TSZ as well.

The representations (nucleic triplets) and protocols (aminoacyl synthetases/aaRS) were identified within the genetic translation system.

From the OP: 8. During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function. 9. From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process is determined by the physical forces of pair bonding. Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation. 10. This physical event, translation by a material protocol, as well as the transcription of a material representation, is ubiquitous in the transfer of recorded information.

And then also there was this:

UB to Alan Fox, Sept 17th: "I suggest reading relevant materials, the Physics of Symbols by physicist Howard Pattee would be a good place to start." UB to Alan Fox, Nov 13th Pattee, as a Professor Emeritus of Physics, has studied the material constraints brought on by the presence of information in material systems for almost half a century. He was speaking specifically from a material perspective. You should attempt to educate yourself on these matters in place of making ill-conceived statements. Perhaps you could start here: The physics of symbols…Howard Pattee

Alan Fox seems to be unaware of the issues at hand. Moreover, as he has already demonstrated upthread, he seems to have no real interest in engaging material facts. Perhaps he will return an insult me some more. For persons of his caliber, this inevitably serves as the placemat of choice. Apparently, there is no sense of intellectual embarrassment to overcome. Upright BiPed

UB's empty metacomments and self-congratulations aside, what has emerged from the above is as follows: By means of UB's direct assent: - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. - It does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. These establish that semiotic theory is devoid of relevance to the central question that animates this debate, e.g. origins through agency (intelligence, design, etc.) versus origins through natural (unguided) processes. It is silent on causation. Further, by implication: - The following statement is false: “The observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process." And by UB's tacit admission (reflected in his refusal to address the question): - What does “a semiotic state” (and therefore the presence of “the entailments” and the TRI) entail that the contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? Not a thing.

“Whatever, it doesn’t matter anyway”.

This is a fair assessment of the status of semiotic theory in light of the above admissions/omissions. As I stated on July 19: "When I claim that natural, unguided events may also account for phenomena that display “the entailments,” semiotic theory is compelled to remain silent, because it makes no claims regarding the cause of the entailments. Absent such causal claims, nothing in semiotic theory, nor the relationship of “the entailments” to the transfer of recorded information, excludes the natural (unguided, etc.) origin of the entailments (it is silent on causation). And, because in semiotic theory the entailments are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the transfer of recorded information/a semiotic state, it follows that nothing in semiotic theory excludes the possibility that the necessary and sufficient conditions of (for?) TRI/a semiotic state may have arisen through natural (unguided, etc.) events." http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1108&cpage=1#comment-14914 If you're content with what survives in semiotic theory following this theoretical orchiectomy, then have at it. Reciprocating Bill

Alan,

The central thesis of the book – that living cells perform computations – arises from contemporary findings in the biological sciences, especially biochemistry and molecular biology. It is a leitmotif of systems biology, although the philosophical ramifications of that new discipline are rarely expressed. – Dennis Bray, Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell (2009)

Do you know who Dennis Bray is? The facts are inconvenient, so you just deny them? Mung

Alan Fox:

If you or anyone could point out where the representations and protocols are in protein synthesis, there might be something to rebut.

This has already been done in this very thread, and probably over at TSZ as well. By the way, your objections at 972/973 was also dealt with. I seem to have missed your response. Mung

Mung:

Was that remark ever formed into an actual argument? If not, it’s just a bald assertion and probably got the attention it deserved.

If you or anyone could point out where the representations and protocols are in protein synthesis, there might be something to rebut. Alan Fox

Alan Fox:

And regarding incoherence, I think it has already been remarked that equating semiotics with protein synthesis makes no sense.

Was that remark ever formed into an actual argument? If not, it's just a bald assertion and probably got the attention it deserved. Mung

And regarding incoherence, I think it has already been remarked that equating semiotics with protein synthesis makes no sense. Alan Fox

Does Reciprocating Bill have the integrity to admit he’s lost the argument?

Which argument? The argument as to whether UB has made an incoherent argument? The argument as to whether UB has made a default argument? The argument as top whether UB has made an argument that addresses evolutionary theory or OOL? The argument as to whether UB's argument has anything to do with ID? Alan Fox

Does Reciprocating Bill have the integrity to admit he's lost the argument? Does onlooker have the intellectual honesty to admit that the argument is far from incoherent? wagers, anyone? Mung

edit for clarity: "The semiotic argument demonstrates conclusively that the processing of recorded information in the genome (which is the proximate cause of all living things on Earth) requires..." Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill,

It establishes that semiotic theory as you have articulated has nothing to say regarding causal origins of the phenomenon in question, just as you state above.

This is merely a deflection of the force of the argument. We’ve dealt with this before, and I am fine in dealing with it again. But let us first take stock of where we are. This is, once again, your tacit admission that you have no refutation to offer of either the material observations or the logic employed. Your parade, which began as a staunch rebuttal, has now passed, and your measured wish at this point is only to belittle the argument as useless in considering the origin of the systems at issue. But is it? Having lost the ability to prove it wrong through reasoning and logic, you will of course argue that it is indeed useless. I am unaffected by such repositioning on your part. In the end, your maneuverings are more a matter of competitive convenience and an unwillingness to accept the loss; certainly not the grand convictions you began with. The semiotic argument demonstrates conclusively that the processing of recorded information (which is the proximate cause of all living things on Earth) requires a formal system of two sets of coordinated material objects in order to function. Each of these objects clearly demonstrates a characteristic beyond its physiochemical make-up; one set are material representations and the other set are translation protocols (rules) instantiated in matter. It further demonstrates that these two sets of objects comprise an irreducibly complex core which is fundamental to the transfer of recorded information. And finally, it demonstrates that this complex core was required prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution, given that Darwinian evolution requires the system in order to exist. The establishment of these required material conditions, based on both universal observation and logical necessity, demonstrates that a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state was essential prior to the evolution of Life on Earth. Your closing comments (i.e. 'granting arguendo', 'it’s useless') can be easily taken for the intellectual value they represent: “Whatever, it doesn’t matter anyway”. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill:

Suggests that it offers no other usable, testable implications as well, and therefore has no other empirical uses. You mean no other use than to point out the way things actually are and therefore what really needs to be explained? I'd say that's empirically useful. You propose to off an explanation for something that doesn't exist or to offer an explanation that doesn't really explain what is there? That's your idea of empirical?

Mung

Reciprocating Bill is worse than a kid before Christmas. If he can't open his presents when he wants then they do not exist. Reciprocating Bill, YOUR inability or unwillingness to go through the process step-by-step suggests that you have an agenda. And your actions throughout demonstrate that at least part of that agenda is obfuscation. Joe

UB:

It’s amazing that you consider this a win for your defense.

It establishes that semiotic theory as you have articulated has nothing to say regarding causal origins of the phenomenon in question, just as you state above. Your inability or unwillingness to address the following...

What does “a semiotic state” (and therefore the presence of “the entailments” and the TRI) entail that the contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not?

Suggests that it offers no other usable, testable implications as well, and therefore has no other empirical uses. Reciprocating Bill

Onlooker, let’s build on your own words and understanding.

You know what Jesus said about building on sand. onlooker's words and understanding are no less shifting. Mung

Onlooker, let's build on your own words and understanding.

this means that the protein that ultimately is synthesized after transcription produces mRNA is arbitrary with respect to the original DNA since there is no direct physical connection between the two.

It's wonderful that you have so clearly articulated the essential characteristic you've been asking for. The relationship between the representation and the effect it produces within the system is "materially arbitrary". D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. "no direct physical connection between the two". - - - - - - - This fits nicely with: "That mapping is context specific, not an inexorable law" (Aug 21) ...and... "The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).” (Aug 30) ...and... "You ask about a mechanism. The issue of the representation being materially arbitrary to its effect does not address any proposed mechanism which may establish that relationship within a system. It does not address (in one way or another) whether a potential mechanism is purely law-based, or contains stochastic or other non-deterministic elements, or otherwise – it simply acknowledges that the relationship between the representation and its effect is not a matter of inexorable law. You cannot derive one from the other (without the system)". (Oct 4) - - - - - - - - Will you be posting your long-awaited rebuttal now? Upright BiPed

onlooker:

Based on these two, the most succinct definition I could come up with is: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

And just what is it you think that defines? Mung

Upright BiPed:

You’ll need a transition from pure determinism to a system built upon an arbitrary relationship between objects that never interact. All unguided by the investigator.

But since you cannot show that it could not possibly be the case that a transition from pure determinism to a system built upon an arbitrary relationship between objects that never interact could take place, you lose. Besides, a stochastic system could do it. Mung

Reciprocating Bill @ 1061 So? Mung

Upright BiPed,

And all this was done, of course, while you played the “granting arguendo” card (which is code “oh shit” in the Materialism vs Design debate). I didn’t play that game then. I’m not playing it now either.

I don't see that as a game, nor as any kind of code. While I'm still interested in understanding the details of your argument, Reciprocating Bill has touched on an important question that you avoided answering repeatedly when you were commenting on The Skeptical Zone: How, exactly, does your argument support ID? onlooker

Upright BiPed,

"The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word "apple" written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent)." Yet, you have refused for the past 40 days to articulate what you find ambiguous about this description, preferring to sling insults instead.

Not true. As noted repeatedly, I based my questions on your statement you quoted here and on this one:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

Based on these two, the most succinct definition I could come up with is: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. I then, again repeatedly, asked some questions about it: Is this really what you mean? It doesn't feel quite right to me because your example of a word triggering a memory does involve a physical process of observing the written word, the automatic firing of neural connections, and the retrieval of memories from a physical brain. Is your definition of "arbitrary" referring to the fact that this is a multistep process? Now, based on the rest of your comment, I have some optimism that we can progress the discussion.

You continue to insist that I include a mechanism in this description, even as you refuse all examples which would illustrate that a mechanism is not germane to the definition.

I think this is a red herring. I'm not asking you to specify a mechanism, I am asking if what you mean by the word "arbitrary" refers to the lack of a direct physical mechanism. If you would simply answer my questions directly, this wouldn't be an issue.

So I can now only ask: What do you mean by “Not connected by any direct physical mechanism”? If you can explain what you mean in a way that I can understand it, then I will be able to answer your question as to whether or not it applies to my argument.

Excellent. Let's make some progress. It appears that what you are ultimately trying to claim is that protein synthesis in a cell (transcription and translation) is a semiotic process, by your definition of "semiotic". It further appears that it is important to your argument that some aspect of a semiotic process is "arbitrary". Given the examples you've provided, the best understanding I can come up with of what you mean by "arbitrary" is that the process involves multiple steps and there is no component in the system that controls those steps explicitly. If I understand your meaning, and I am not confident I do, this means that the protein that ultimately is synthesized after transcription produces mRNA is arbitrary with respect to the original DNA since there is no direct physical connection between the two. So, does my proposed definition: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. reflect how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does it lack? Does a process being composed of multiple steps make it arbitrary? onlooker

Reciprocating Bill,

What I have is your admission that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that only design, agency, intelligence etc. can give rise to such systems.

Correct, I did not assume any conclusions in the observation of evidence. Excellent.

What I also have is your further admission that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided processes cannot give rise to such systems.

Ditto. It's amazing that you consider this a win for your defense.

And, flat fact: what I have is your admission that it is false that “the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process". That is false.

You'll need a transition from pure determinism to a system built upon an arbitrary relationship between objects that never interact. All unguided by the investigator. Good luck on that.

No wonder you avoided answering my questions regarding causation from July 17 to November 12:

Yes, you implied a massive refutation going back for months based on faulty logic, circularity, and anything else one might imagine. That all came crashing down in June. So in July you began to ask "Well, what does this all mean anyway!?". Hilarious. And all this was done, of course, while you played the "granting arguendo" card (which is code "oh shit" in the Materialism vs Design debate). I didn't play that game then. I'm not playing it now either. Upright BiPed

What we have here is Reciprocating Bill admitting that his position has absolutely nothing. IOW it is obvious that “the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process.” Otherwise RB would be posting evidence. Joe

UB:

It’s too late in the game to be indefinite, Bill. You either have something or you don’t.

What I have is your admission that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class of mechanism is required to give rise to (cause, create) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic system. Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that only design, agency, intelligence etc. can give rise to such systems. What I also have is your further admission that it does not follow from semiotic theory that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided processes cannot give rise to such systems. And, flat fact: what I have is your admission that it is false that "the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process." That is false. No wonder you avoided answering my questions regarding causation from July 17 to November 12:

Upright Biped, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.  Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1108&cpage=1#comment-14933 So, UB, why not cut to the chase and tell us where this all goes? Granting arguendo your argument and conclusion above, where does it go? At TSZ I asked you (about 20 times) what “a semiotic state” entails that “the transfer of recorded information” does not. I now restate that question in a slightly more generalized form that should be easier for you to answer: What does “a semiotic state” (and therefore the presence of “the entailments” and the TRI) entail that the contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? Here are some things you have already stated do NOT follow upon identifying a system as semiotic: - It does not follow that the system must have had intelligent or agentic origins. - It does not follow that the system could not have arisen by unguided means. What, then, what DOES necessarily follow? What DOES follow from characterizing the transcription of DNA as “a semiotic state” as you describe it that does not follow from a description of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA? Absent any further description of what follows from declaring “a semiotic state,” it really doesn’t much matter whether your “observations” and “logic” above are correct or not. They simply don’t go anywhere. Reciprocating Bill

Toronto:

My “bricks” and “corks” transferred information regarding their mass, without a “material representation”.

No they didn't.

Your defence of Upright’s “theory” is to agree that it doesn’t do anything?

No attack was launched, no defense was required.

Despite not studying physics, only an ignorant caveman would make his raft out of rocks instead of cork after seeing that.

But if all you've got are rocks...

A ship will displace X mass of water depending on the thickness of the hull and the volume of space in the hull.

How much information would it displace?

If the hull was solid, a ship built of material with greater mass than water, would sink.

Unlike a ship built with a hull full of holes.

Upright’s argument has been refuted as no “representation of matter” was required for the transfer of information, in this case, that corks have less mass than bricks.

Really big corks have more mass than really small bricks.

No language, no protocol and no pre-existing information was required.

No information is required to float a brick. Agreed. So information about mass was transferred, but that was with no concept of mass, or brick, or cork, or water. Got it. Mung

Reciprocating Bill at 1034, I was correct in my earlier assessment; your answers are an unspoken acknowledgement that you have no refutation to offer. As is ‘par for the course’, this is skillfully cloaked in stoic, face-saving, obfuscation. It’s too late in the game to be indefinite, Bill. You either have something or you don’t. And you don’t. The only thing of any substance in your response is the question of differing kinds of information. You mention this as a part of your response to both questions. Yet this is nothing more than a lingering attempt to add pointless ambiguity to an otherwise coherent (and unrefuted) understanding of the systems in action. You did not (and cannot) make a case for it. The word “apple” (spoken or written) is an arrangement of matter that evokes a specified effect within a system. The grooves on a vinyl record are an arrangement of matter that evokes a specified effect within a system. The chemical make-up of a particular pheromone is an arrangement of matter that evokes a specified effect within a system. There are untold numbers of differing kinds of information transfer, and they are each transferred within untold numbers of differing kinds of systems. Each of these systems has the capacity to react to the transfer, and produce specified effects. Some transfers of information result in us knowing what an actor is saying on the stage, so that we may follow along the plotline in the play. Some transfers of information result in the perfect milling of parts to be used in a machine of some kind. Some transfers make the doe stop to feed her young when they gesture for it. Some coordinate individual bacteria cells to attack a host at a particular point in time. Some cause relays, gates, and pumps within our municipal systems to switch and operate on order to maintain our cities. Others cause specific amino acids to be added to growing polypeptides in our cells. In each and every one of these cases there is an arrangement of matter evoking a response within the system, and a second arrangement of matter to establish what that response will be. The fact that you’d like to refer to some of these as “signals”, and others as “representations”, and others as “symbols” in entirely superfluous and unnecessary to the material function of the systems involved. Your personal language preferences are moot at the material level, and it is at that material level where the observations and the descriptions are made. There have now been tens of thousands of words between us on this matter, and you are down to making distinctions that present to no difference whatsoever in the systems at issue. My argument stands. As for Elizabeth Liddle: Dr Liddle had been on UD for quite some time making lots of claims she was unable to back up. She had suggested that she could write a simulation causing the rise of information using any definition of “information” that an ID proponent wanted to use. She accepted that challenge, and then recanted after she discovered that information had real world material consequences which she would have to deliver in order to falsify the ID claim. She not only failed to falsify the ID claim, but ended up supporting it. Here is a highly compressed assortment of highpoints from the conversation where she was given the argument (using the same general observations which you also cannot refute):

EL: …my position is that IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes. EL: I simply do not accept the tenet that replication with modification + natural selection cannot introduce “new information” into the genome. It demonstrably can, IMO, on any definition of information I am aware of. UB: Neo-Darwinism doesn’t have a mechanism to bring information into existence in the first place. To speak freely of what it can do with information once it exists, is to ignore the 600lbs assumption in the room. EL: Well, tell me what definition of information you are using, and I’ll see if I can demonstrate that it can. EL: What makes it information, I think we agreed, is when it is not the objects themselves, but a arrangement of those objects that produces the specific effects. As, for example, when a codon produces an amino acid, not because the nucleotides themselves produce this effect, but because the arrangement of the nucleotides produce this effect. EL: I claimed that ID claims that information (by any definition ID proponents wish to use) cannot be generated by Darwinian processes, or indeed Chance and Necessity, can be demonstrated to be false. EL: I freely conceded that I could not make good on your challenge. My original claim assumed a different definition of information from the one you have asked me to use.

…and later

UB: (regarding heritable information) …you’ll need a source of symbolic representations and transfer protocols operating in a coordinated system. The rise of formalism doesn’t come cheap. EL: You know, Upright BiPed, you are absolutely right! Darwinian evolution doesn’t explain how replication with heritable variation in reproductive success first came into being!

Of course, she never recanted her false claim about ID’s ability to proffer an argument that Darwinian evolution could not also explain. She could only be forced to imply she didn’t really understand the argument (although the record shows she came to understand it fully. Frankly, she may wish you to stop reliving the moment for her. I join her in that wish. Elizabeth’s unfortunate learning curve was made public on this forum by her own claims against ID, and it was then made drastically more pronounced by her unwillingness to accept what was being shown to her. Why don’t you people just leave it alone? As for your specific comment regarding Dr Liddle, you already know full well that the semiotic argument I have presented doesn’t address the source of the semiosis, no more than the fire tetrahedron tells you who or what started a fire. Like the fire tetrahedron, it tells you what is materially required for the effect to occur Upright BiPed

Toronto doesn’t care what the facts are. He only wants to get a response.

From now on I'm going to call that "floating a brick" in his honor. Mung

Mung at 1051,

quoting Toronto: "The bottom line is bricks sink and corks float and that informs you of their mass relative to water, without any “representation instantiated in matter”.

Geeez. It is inconceivable that this guy is still trying to sell this line. He says information has been transferred when you see the bricks sink and the corks float. But when these things are seen, is it ‘sinking bricks’ and ‘floating corks’ traveling through the optical nerve to the brain? Or is it a transcribed representation of those objects which will then be translated into a usable cognition by a material protocol in the visual cortex? This objection is now six or seven versions old… (each one answered to him with the same facts)

Toronto: May17th Go to a barbershop anywhere in the world and get a haircut … the information regarding the success of your haircut will be transferred through your eyes and into your brain … No protocol, no code, no semiotic process of any kind involved … Imagine that a stray photon hits my face and bounces off a mirror into my eye… etc etc etc

Toronto doesn’t care what the facts are. He only wants to get a response. Upright BiPed

tonto:

Upright’s argument has been refuted as no “representation of matter” was required for the transfer of information, in this case, that corks have less mass than bricks.

Umm the brick, matter, sinks through water, also matter. So the representation of the sinking of one piece of matter through another, would be "a representation of matter required for the transfer of information"- and actually it would just be data, not information, that was/ would be transferred.

No language, no protocol and no pre-existing information was required.

That is false. In order to make information out of the data, pre-existing information is required. And I could make a brick that floats and a rock that flaots. Heck according to you evos anyone who walks on a frozen lake is floating on water. So I went to a frozen lake, tossed a brick and a cork on it and neither sank. You lose, tonto. Joe

The bottom line is bricks sink and corks float and that informs you of their mass relative to water, without any “representation instantiated in matter”.”

Joe: Nope. You already have to have that information. toronto:

No you don’t, any more than an accountant “already” has the information that Rice Crispies cost more than a Popsicle, simply by virtue of being educated as an accountant.

Nice non-sequitur tardgasm, there, toronto. And a popsicle can cost more than Rice Crispies, so what? An ignorant person would nave no idea why the brick sank nor why the cork floats. Therefor no information was transferred. If that experiment is conducted in front of a totally ignorant person, such as yourself, they wouldn’t have any clue as to what happened nor why.

Despite not studying physics, only an ignorant caveman would make his raft out of rocks instead of cork after seeing that.

Humans make ships out of heavy-than-water concrete. Joe

...and it is entertaining.

It is that. Mung

toronto chokes:

The bottom line is bricks sink and corks float and that informs you of their mass relative to water, without any “representation instantiated in matter”.

Nope. You already have to have that information. If that experiment is conducted in front of a totally ignorant person, such as yourself, they wouldn't have any clue as to what happened nor why. But please keep grasping at straws. It exposes your desperation and it is entertaining. Joe

Reciprocating Billy:

So far as I am concerned, the fat lady sang vis Upright’s semiotic theory during this exchange:

The fat lady sang a long time ago vis YOUR position and the semiotic theory. Ya see Billy YOU still don't have any evidence that unguided evolution can do it. I take it that it bothers you that your position has nothing... Joe

Toronto:

The bottom line is bricks sink and corks float and that informs you of their mass relative to water, without any “representation instantiated in matter”.

According to your logic, anything with mass greater than a brick should sink. But ships with a greater mass than a brick float. So much for your logic. Mung

keiths:

How is this relevant to whether Upright’s argument is wrong?

And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information. This evidence demonstrates a central prediction of ID – that the genome is a semiotic process. It also demonstrates the most prolific example of irreducible complexity in the natural world. And also that, using Darwin’s own standard, evolution is incapable of establishing that process. keiths:

How is this relevant to whether Upright’s argument is wrong?

For someone who hasn't been following along, it probably isn't. But the statements and 'arguments' of someone who hasn't been following along are likewise irrelevant. Mung

keiths:

Mung, You are amusingly predictable.

You're a predictable liar and there's nothing amusing about it.

2) that you wouldn’t bother to actually understand what the article says.

Which article? Do you think your google search returned only one article?

1) you would find that title irresistible, and that you would cherry-pick it for no other reason,

So you knew your search would return more than one result? So "the article" refers to which article? And you knew I would cherry pick that one article? But the facts show that I actually looked at at least two articles. So much for your powers of prognostication.

I was right on both counts.

You were right on neither count.

Second, the article states:

Which article? The search returned more than one result.

To make a successful argument for ID based on this idea, you would need to show that Shapiro’s hypothetical system of cross-replicating molecules was too complex to have arisen via unguided natural processes. Have at it.

By your own admission, such challenges are not objective. Come up with an objective falsification and we'll listen. How does one even begin to falsify the claim that a hypothetical system of cross-replicating molecules was too complex to have arisen via unguided natural processes? Have at it. Mung

The TSZ Motto: "He can't prove that I can't imagine that I might be right and he might be wrong, therefore..." Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

In his above exchange with me he clearly indicates that it does not follow from semiotic theory that the entailments of information transfer are beyond even a conceptual unguided process.

So? Once again the 'critic' retreats behind the non-objective "if you can't prove me wrong" excuse. Is that what it means to be a skeptic these days? If you can't prove me wrong I must not be wrong? Mung

Toronto:

Toronto:

Upright’s “Semiotic Theory” is really a “Semiotic Labeling Theory” where he points out labels used in understanding human language and communications, and mapping them onto biology.

So? You have a theory of labeling not dependent upon human language and communications? Toronto:

His “theory” ends right after the labeling is done but before any analysis or conclusions are reached.

So? Toronto:

I also have a theory that’s just as useful where I apply labels to ID as in, “The Genesis Theory Of ID”.

Great theory. So? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

Granting arguendo your argument and conclusion above, where does it go?

It goes straight to the heart. Why would you grant an argument which has been claimed to be incoherent? Why would you grant an argument of which it is asserted that the premises are false?

Granting arguendo your argument and conclusion above, where does it go?

I take it that you, along with so many others from TSZ, are not able to refute it. So you, like so many others from TSZ, have to take a different approach to the argument, one that does not address the facts, the evidence, or the argument itself.

I have no opinion vis this question.

Is that because you are just ignorant of the science? Mung

When you return, UB, why not cut to the chase and tell us where this all goes? Granting arguendo your argument and conclusion above, where does it go? Your argument is essentially that the "material evidence" establishes that the transcription of DNA into proteins is an instance of the transfer of recorded information, and therefore exhibits "the entailments" of the TRI, by which you mean the universally necessary and sufficient conditions for the transfer of recorded information. Those necessarily also confirm "a semiotic state." At TSZ I asked you (about 20 times) what "a semiotic state" entails that "the transfer of recorded information" does not. It was a question motivated by the same puzzlement that motivates this post. Your replies were non-responsive reproductions of the definitions of "the TRI" and "a semiotic state" that failed to address the question. I now restate that question in a slightly more generalized form that should be easier for you to answer. What does "a semiotic state" (and therefore the presence of "the entailments" and the TRI) entail that a contemporary understanding of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins does not? Here are some things you have already unambiguously stated do NOT follow upon identifying the system as semiotic: - It does not follow that the system must have had intelligent or agentic origins (including living agents). - It does not follow that the system could not have arisen by unguided means. Then, what DOES necessarily follow? What DOES follow from characterizing the transcription of DNA as "a semiotic state" that does not follow from a description of the physiochemical interactions evident in the transcription of DNA? Absent any further description of what follows from declaring "a semiotic state," it really doesn't much matter whether your "observations" and "logic" above are correct or not. They don't go anywhere. Reciprocating Bill

I see Bill's answer. It looks like a non answer, or rather, an answer in the negative. I'll return later to respond. I don't have time now. I'm off to Turn One Row Six of the Formula One US Gran Prix. Cheers Upright BiPed

And keiths proves he dies NOT understand science:

To make a successful argument for ID based on this idea, you would need to show that Shapiro’s hypothetical system of cross-replicating molecules was too complex to have arisen via unguided natural processes.

No, you scientifically illiterate evo. YOU or someone else has to demonstrate such a thing is possible. Joe

keiths, Exactly what information is being transferred by self-replicating molecules? Please be specific. If you cannot say then you still have nothing. Joe

Here we report a first development in this direction, using DNA tile motifs that can recognize and bind complementary tiles in a pre-programmed fashion. We first design tile motifs so they form a seven-tile seed sequence; then use the seeds to instruct the formation of a first generation of complementary seven-tile daughter sequences; and finally use the daughters to instruct the formation of seven-tile granddaughter sequences that are identical to the initial seed sequences.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7368/full/nature10500.html Tell us keiths, is this system IC? Is it capable of Darwinian evolution? Mung

Hey Eric, I think keiths is trying to get your attention with the following: Life Did Not Appear with A Self-Replicating Molecule Mung

Toronto:

I think what Upright means by “materially arbitrary”, is that it is not constrained by any material restrictions.

No, that's not what he means. If it's a material system it's going to be constrained. He's not proposing a perpetual motion machine. Mung

onlooker:

“Arbitrary” as used in your argument does not seem on inspection to be the same as it is used by Elizabeth.

Yes, it does.

Her usage is perfectly aligned with that in the dictionary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

And Upright Biped's usage is also perfectly aligned with that in the dictionary:

1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law [the manner of punishment is arbitrary] 2 a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority [an arbitrary government] b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power [protection from arbitrary arrest and detention] 3 a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something [an arbitrary standard] [take any arbitrary positive number] [arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee] b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will [when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary— Nehemiah Jord

#s 1 & 3A, duh Joe

And Reciprocating Bill still can't find any evidence that support that claims of his position. That is why he is relegated to posting raw spewage. Bill, your continued whining proves that you have nothing. Thank you. Joe

I don’t find observations at the top of the page.

Of course you don't. Mung

UB:

Which one of the observations at the top of this page have you shown (or can show) to be false?

I don't find observations at the top of the page. I do find a definition: "A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system." Definitions are neither true nor false. Rather, as the content of a definition changes, the set of objects and phenomena picked out by that definition changes. Some definitions call out referents in a way that "carves nature at the joints," while others don't. Those that do are useful conceptual tools, while those that don't have less use or are misleading. Ergo, "A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system" is neither true or false, although it can be said to be more or less accurate and useful relative to competing definitions. That said, I don't find this definition t to be very satisfactory for a number of reasons. For example, it blurs crucial distinctions between exemplars that "represent" in the sense of "symbolize" with other, non-symbolic forms of representation. (The word "Apple" and the grooves of a 78 rpm record "represent" in senses that are fundamentally different, as the undulations of the grooves of a recording of Beethoven's 5th clearly don't in any sense "symbolize" that symphony, and bear a much less arbitrary relationship to their referent.) Your definition also picks out phenomena that in my opinion are not representational at all (pheromones and animal nudges do not "represent," in my opinion). It omits the intentionality inherent in representation. And so forth. The claims that build upon your definition of "representation" are not further observations. Rather, they form an hypothesis or a model that similarly must be evaluated with respect to degrees of accuracy and usefulness relative to competing models. However, you have already stated that this model neither requires nor excludes agentic versus unguided origins, obviously the key question in this discussion. It might still prove its usefulness were it to generate other unique, testable empirical predictions, but I have yet to see any.

Have you shown, or can you show an example of invalid logic in the conclusions stemming from the observations at the top of this page?

Of course, logic is evaluated in the reasoning that yields a conclusion, not in the conclusions themselves. That said, I don't find the your chain of follow-on claims to be linked by logical arguments (either valid or invalid), but rather see bare claims offered without attempted logical justification. And, as above, I find them stemming from a definition, not an observation. Most important, given the fact that semiotic theory neither requires nor excludes particular classes of causation, I find the ultimate conclusion toothless with respect to the origins of the phenomena it concerns, rather than illogical. >> Do you believe that the working scientists and researchers who are proponents of biosemiosis (even those who profess complete methodological materialism in their discipline) are incorrect in their assessment that the translation of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state? If so, how are they mistaken, and what would you say to them to correct their error(s)? I have no opinion vis this question. By the way, although to Lizzie you stated:

You withdrew because the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process, and you know it.

We now have this exhange: RB:

Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

UB:

No.

I think you owe Lizzie a retraction, as you above clearly state that semiotic theory per se does not place the entailments of information transfer beyond even a conceptual unguided process. Reciprocating Bill

Many proteins in living cells appear to have as their primary function the transfer and processing of information, rather than the chemical transformation of metabolic intermediates or the building of cellular structures. Such proteins are functionally linked through allosteric or other mechanisms into biochemical 'circuits' that perform a variety of simple computational tasks including amplification, integration and information storage. - Dennis Bray, Protein molecules as computational elements in living cells

http://vimeo.com/18143991 Mung

The central thesis of the book - that living cells perform computations - arises from contemporary findings in the biological sciences, especially biochemistry and molecular biology. It is a leitmotif of systems biology, although the philosophical ramifications of that new discipline are rarely expressed. - Dennis Bray, Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell (2009)

What are the physical/material requirements of a system capable of performing computations? Mung

Yet, you have refused for the past 40 days to articulate what you find ambiguous about this description, preferring to sling insults instead.

What else are you going to do when you've run out of face-saving options and are too full of yourself to admit it? Mung

onlooker:

Her usage is perfectly aligned with that in the dictionary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

But that doesn't rule out that it could be connected by a direct physical mechanism.

D3: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

Fail Mung

Onlooker, If the relationship between a material representation and its material effect is subject to 'choice', then it is free from inexorable law. And if this description is modified by the word “materially” then this freedom from inexorable law is tied not to a choice, but to the material involved. If this should somehow escape your intellectual grasp, then for the remainder of humanity it would be clarified by the follow-on clarification: “The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).” Yet, you have refused for the past 40 days to articulate what you find ambiguous about this description, preferring to sling insults instead. You continue to insist that I include a mechanism in this description, even as you refuse all examples which would illustrate that a mechanism is not germane to the definition. So I can now only ask: What do you mean by “Not connected by any direct physical mechanism”? If you can explain what you mean in a way that I can understand it, then I will be able to answer your question as to whether or not it applies to my argument. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Regarding Onlooker, "I notice you still won’t answer simple questions about your definitions."

Elizabeth Liddle: Like the arbitrary mapping of the symbol "b" to the sound "buh". Any symbol would do. So the mapping is arbitrary.

As I stated 84 days and 1006 comments ago. I mean what she means.

Perhaps you do, but since she is no longer allowed to post here we can't easily find out. Allow me to remind you how I came up with my formulation for the definition you are so unwilling to provide:

The word "arbitrary" is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word "apple" written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

Okay, in the interest of progressing the discussion, let me take a stab at a definition based on this. The need for a precise definition comes from your paragraph 3:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

So, based on these two quotes, my first attempt is: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is this really what you mean? It doesn't feel quite right to me because your example of a word triggering a memory does involve a physical process of observing the written word, the automatic firing of neural connections, and the retrieval of memories from a physical brain. Is your definition of "arbitrary" referring to the fact that this is a multistep process?

"Arbitrary" as used in your argument does not seem on inspection to be the same as it is used by Elizabeth. Her usage is perfectly aligned with that in the dictionary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. So, if you are actually interested in making your argument understandable instead of running from any risk of being proven wrong, show some minimal intellectual integrity and answer the questions directly. onlooker

Unicorns are real! Mung

keiths: "Now consider self-replicating molecules." Here's a better idea: let's consider the unicorn . . . C'mon, let's at least talk about real entities, can we? Eric Anderson

keiths:

Your argument is that 1) Darwinian evolution depends on the “transfer of recorded information”

And you offer no reason to believe otherwise. Check. keiths:

2) the “transfer of recorded information” requires two distinct arrangements of matter, a “representation” and a “protocol”

And you offer no reason to believe otherwise. Check. keiths:

3) the representation is necessarily distinct from the thing it represents, with the protocol providing the “bridge” between the two

And you offer no reason to believe otherwise. Check. keiths:

4) the representation and the protocol form an irreducibly complex system

And you offer no reason to believe otherwise. Check. keiths:

5) though you’re oddly afraid to say so explicitly, you are inviting readers to conclude that this irreducibly complex system must have been designed.

And you offer no reason to believe otherwise. Check.

Now consider that your argument is incoherent.

Oops. How did that bit from onlooker get in there? keiths:

Now consider self-replicating molecules.

Why? Mung

Finally, is it over now?

Define finally. Mung

Toronto:

Then Mung said, “I’ve just thrown some water into the pool”, and I said, “The water level is higher, therefore water has been added to the pool”.

And I said, "after the water drops were added the water level was lower." So how much information do you have and how did you measure it? Do you know what a non sequitur is? Do you know what circular reasoning, and begging the question are? I told you I added drops of water. Your conclusion is that therefore, water was added. Well, duh! No information there. You say you took a measurement and the water level was higher. How do you know that? How do you know it wasn't lower? No information there. Say it follows by necessity that if water is added to the pool the water level rises. So if I add water and the water level rises have you really gained any information? No information there. So You take a "before" measurement and an "after" measurement and the water level is higher. Does it follow that water was added to the pool? No. Maybe someone drove a car into the pool. No information there. But how can the water level be lower after water is added? The pool was in the process of being drained. It was a hot day and water was evaporating. Like I said. You never stop long enough to think. What you haven't done is rebut the argument in the OP. Mung

As I stated 84 days and 1006 comments ago. I mean what she means.

But what does she mean by "mapping", "symbol", "b", "sound" and "buh". Without that how can we possibly know anything, which means your theory is refuted. Finally, is it over now? :roll: Joe

keiths:

... your only hope is to demonstrate that information transfer via self-replicating molecules is impossible. Good luck with that.

lol Mung

Like the not connected by any direct physical mechanism mapping of the symbol “b” to the sound “buh”. Any symbol would do. So the mapping is not connected by any direct physical mechanism. buh Mung

Regarding Onlooker, "I notice you still won’t answer simple questions about your definitions."

Elizabeth Liddle: Like the arbitrary mapping of the symbol “b” to the sound “buh”. Any symbol would do. So the mapping is arbitrary.

As I stated 84 days and 1006 comments ago. I mean what she means. Upright BiPed

Regarding Keith,

Keith wants Mung to ask me a) if a self-replicating molecule can transfer information, and b) what the representation and protocol are in this self-replicating molecule. He also wants to know if they would therefore comprise an irreducible complex system. As for his last question, I have already stated that representations and protocols are irreducible complex. As for his first two questions, he is specifically asking me to identify objects within a system which he does not identify. This puts me in the rather awkward position of identifying objects within whatever system I might imagine, or even worse, identifying objects within whatever system he might imagine. Obviously his questions are pointless. So if he will provide an example of a self-replicating molecule, then I will analyze it and provide an answer.

Has Keith provided an example of a self-replicating molecule yet, or is he still claiming such details are “irrelevant”? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill, You have now posted five times since I asked you to give me the same straight answers I have given you. Do you plan to address those questions, or not? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill, I don’t mean to impart any inconsistency, and I believe the context of the conversation demonstrates that I haven’t. You had asked me what class of mechanism could and could not create a semiotic state. I had already answered the first part of your question by drawing on the observation that all semiosis on earth stems from massive pre-existing organization (i.e. an agent). And here is my answer to the second part of your question: “Again, I refer to observation; inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial condition provides no examples of producing semiotic states. I would also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function, such as Darwinian evolution as it is documented to function in living things. It should be abundantly clear from this that I was addressing any speculated material process being the source of the semiosis in the genome on a pre-biotic earth. It should also be obvious that this would include the Darwinian process which requires that semiosis in order to exist. You then went on question why an agency mechanism is not also disqualified on the grounds that it would require semiosis as well. However, it does not follow that a proposed agency mechanism requires the semiosis in the genome of a pre-biotic earth, which is the very thing needing an explanation. As I said in my previous response; “The question at hand is the source of semiosis on this individual planet roughly 3 billion years ago, not the ultimate source of organization in any conceivable context.” In short, in the first instance I was addressing a material process which cannot logically both explain the semiosis on earth while at the same time require it for existence. And in the second instance I was addressing an agent mechanism which can explain that semiosis because it does not depend upon it. Again, this should be obvious from the context. Upright BiPed

keiths:

5) though you’re oddly afraid to say so explicitly, you are inviting readers to conclude that this irreducibly complex system must have been designed.

How so? Surely IC systems can just 'poof' into existence. Now consider self-replicating molecules. Why? Is it an example of an IC system that just 'poofed' into existence? Mung

Ah, the lying troll, onlooker, is back. With more lies. And more repetition of a non-definition. That's why onlooker is a lying troll. 1. The Lies. 2. The Trollish behavior. Mung

Upright BiPed, Speaking of attempting to make your argument coherent, I notice you still won't answer simple questions about your definitions. Let's try again. D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? onlooker

Upright BiPed, A much better 1000th comment would be what keiths posted on The Skeptical Zone. While I've been trying to get you to put your argument into some coherent form, keiths took the more holistic approach of applying his own intelligence to create something coherent out of your word salad and addressing the most fair interpretation of it:

Upright, Thank you for responding to my rebuttal of your argument. I enjoy the rare moments when you come out of hiding and actually engage those critics of yours who have been banned from UD. That said, I won’t hide my disappointment at the evasiveness of your response. You failed to address my key points — points which are fatal to your argument, as you and I both know. Your argument is that 1) Darwinian evolution depends on the “transfer of recorded information”; 2) the “transfer of recorded information” requires two distinct arrangements of matter, a “representation” and a “protocol”; 3) the representation is necessarily distinct from the thing it represents, with the protocol providing the “bridge” between the two; 4) the representation and the protocol form an irreducibly complex system; and 5) though you’re oddly afraid to say so explicitly, you are inviting readers to conclude that this irreducibly complex system must have been designed. Now consider self-replicating molecules. a. Information can be transferred from a self-replicating molecule to its “offspring”. In my rebuttal, I described how a message could be sent from sender to receiver via a chain of self-replicating molecules. b. A self-replicating molecule is its own representation, yet in your argument you incorrectly claim that the representation must be distinct from the thing it represents. c. You claim that besides the representation, there must be a distinct arrangement of matter that you call the “protocol”. Well, there is no second arrangement of matter in the case of self-replicating molecules, so the “protocol” doesn’t exist. Yet information gets transferred anyway. So your claim that a protocol is required is incorrect. d. If you were to try to argue that the self-replicating molecule is both the representation and the protocol, you would run into another problem, because your claim was that the representation and the protocol are separate arrangements of matter, and that together they form an irreducibly complex system. Your argument is therefore still wrong, even if you try this maneuver. e. Another gambit would be for you to claim that self-replicating molecules don’t really transfer information, but that would be absurd because I’ve already showed how you could send a message using self-replicating molecules. You would be claiming that sending a message does not constitute a “transfer of recorded information”, which would be ridiculous. f. You could attempt to argue that Darwinian evolution depends on the kind of information transfer you envision, with a representation and a distinct protocol. However, that’s just not correct. To get Darwinian evolution, all you need is replication with heritable variation and differential reproductive success. Your argument is in tatters, Upright.

His summary sentence is spot on. onlooker

UB:

I did not tell you that among the kinds of causes that ‘cannot originate semiosis’ are those that require information to function.

But earlier: RB:

Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

UB:

also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function

? Reciprocating Bill

Reciprocating Bill, I am still interested in the answers you assured you’d provide from the preceding exchange: >> Which one of the observations at the top of this page have you shown (or can show) to be false? >> Have you shown, or can you show an example of invalid logic in the conclusions stemming from the observations at the top of this page? >> Do you believe that the working scientists and researchers who are proponents of biosemiosis (even those who profess complete methodological materialism in their discipline) are incorrect in their assessment that the translation of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state? If so, how are they mistaken, and what would you say to them to correct their error(s)? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill,

UB: If it is a matter of universal observation that all examples of semiosis on this planet originate/operate from massive pre-existing organization, on what grounds am I obligated to exclude that observation when considering the origin of semiosis on this planet? RB: On the grounds that you just stated that among [the] kinds of causes that observation tells us cannot create/originate/cause the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state are those that require recorded information to function. Do not all living agents require recorded information to function? If so, why aren’t they excluded on that ground?

First, the technical flaw I did not tell you that among the kinds of causes that 'cannot originate semiosis' are those that require information to function. Second, the logical flaw To follow your logic: When considering a potential source for semiosis on this planet, I should exclude the universal observation (that all examples of semiosis on this planet originate from massive pre-existing organization) because such a source may also require massive pre-existing organization. One does not follow from the other. A deliberate exclusion of the material observations does not follow from any proposed requirement for the existence of the source. The question at hand is the source of semiosis on this individual planet roughly 3 billion years ago, not the ultimate source of organization in any conceivable context. Thirdly, the metaphysical assumption Since you do not incorporate the observations within the argument into (at minimum) an open question, but instead insist that the material observations be excluded altogether, you necessarily put yourself into the metaphysical position that agency is a phenomenon which began singularly on earth. There is, of course, no material support for this position, and it has no advantage (logical or otherwise) over those who incorporate the observations to whatever degree they do so. And finally, the unanswered question Will excluding the observation negate the material requirements? Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill,

However, to me you have just affirmed that semiotic theory itself tells us neither what mechanisms can give rise to a semiotic state nor what mechanisms cannot give rise to a semiotic state.

Again, are you suggesting that we should attempt to apprehend a causal mechanism without understanding what is necessary of it? This does not square with your follow-on comment; “Of course a description of the system we wish to understand is a crucial element in the search for causes.” As has already been explained via the example of the fire tetrahedron; the tetrahedron defines (without exception) what is required for a fire to occur, but does not identify who or what may have caused the fire. Yet, if a fuel and heat source (specific material conditions) are required, then we know that the cause of that fire will have had to provide those requirements if they are not locally accounted for otherwise. This is non-controversial.

The question is, does adding “the system is semiotic” as defined in semiotic theory to that description add anything of value to our current physiochemical understanding?

It tells us that the process has a physiochemically-arbitrary relationship instantiated within it which is not only necessary for it to operate, but is also the specific source of the function it produces. And as you say, this is a “crucial element” if we wish to understand the system as it actually exist. There is no principle involved that says we should we ignore this material fact. To the contrary – and regardless of any metaphysical disposition – proper systematic investigation demands it. Upright BiPed

Reciprocating Bill:

Because it is silent on causal history/mechanism, I fail to see the added scientific value of construing the translation of DNA into proteins as “semiotic” over and above what we already know about the process.

so? Is that supposed to be an argument against the use of the term? IS the system a semiotic system or not? If we know a system is chaotic, we should not call it chaotic because calling it chaotic adds nothing we don't already know. Is that your argument? Mung

What a great way to highlight 1000 posts of no refutation. Mung

RB:

However, to me you have just affirmed that semiotic theory itself tells us neither what mechanisms can give rise to a semiotic state nor what mechanisms cannot give rise to a semiotic state.

Observations and experiences take care of that.

Because it is silent on causal history/mechanism, I fail to see the added scientific value of construing the translation of DNA into proteins as “semiotic” over and above what we already know about the process.

It is semiotic RB. And what we already know should be more than enough to abandon unguided evolution.

The question is, does adding “the system is semiotic” as defined in semiotic theory to that description add anything of value to our current physiochemical understanding?

yes, it does. Joe

keiths:

Now consider self-replicating molecules.

We cannot consider what doesn’t exist.

a. Information can be transferred from a self-replicating molecule to its “offspring”. In my rebuttal, I described how a message could be sent from sender to receiver via a chain of self-replicating molecules.

Unfortunately you still do NOT have a self-replicating molecule capable of such a thing. Your "argument" can't even get started, keiths. Joe

UB, above (to keiths) you remind us:

the conclusion of the earlier argument is that “the search for an answer to the rise of the recorded information in the genome needs to focus on mechanisms that can give rise to a semiotic state, since that is the way we find it.”

However, to me you have just affirmed that semiotic theory itself tells us neither what mechanisms can give rise to a semiotic state nor what mechanisms cannot give rise to a semiotic state. Because it is silent on causal history/mechanism, I fail to see the added scientific value of construing the translation of DNA into proteins as "semiotic" over and above what we already know about the process.

What else constrains the evaluation of a “set of possible causal mechanisms” if not what is necessary for them to accomplish?

Of course a description of the system we wish to understand is a crucial element in the search for causes. The question is, does adding "the system is semiotic" as defined in semiotic theory to that description add anything of value to our current physiochemical understanding? Given that you have unambiguously stated that semiotic theory neither requires a nor excludes a particular kind of causation, I don't see that adding "semiosis" to the description we already have adds anything of value, or aids in that search.

If it is a matter of universal observation that all examples of semiosis on this planet originate/operate from massive pre-existing organization, on what grounds am I obligated to exclude that observation when considering the origin of semiosis on this planet?

On the grounds that you just stated that among kinds of causes that observation tells us cannot create/originate/cause the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state are those that require recorded information to function. Do not all living agents require recorded information to function? If so, why aren't they excluded on that ground? Reciprocating Bill

RB:

However, even granting the conclusion of that chain of propositions, I don’t see anything that speaks to causation, and therefore what the theory per se has to do with either designed or unguided causation.

Except there isn't any evidence that any unguided causation can produce a semiotic system and plenty that demonstrates agencies can and do. So with that in mind, what do you think RB? Or can that fit in your little, bitty mind? Joe

Reciprocating Bill,

Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

No.

Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state?

No.

If either, how does that constraint flow from the theory itself, “per se?”

Answered.

If neither, how can the theory itself can be said to constrain the set of possible causal mechanisms? Would it not be silent on causation?

What else constrains the evaluation of a “set of possible causal mechanisms” if not what is necessary for them to accomplish? Are you suggesting that we should attempt to apprehend a causal mechanism without understanding what is necessary? Are you suggesting that all causal mechanisms are equal? If these are not what you are suggesting, then knowing 'what is necessary' helps to illuminate any proposition to follow. Do you disagree?

Also, within your framework, do not living agents (displaying massive organization) require recorded information to function? Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function?

If it is a matter of universal observation that all examples of semiosis on this planet originate/operate from massive pre-existing organization, on what grounds am I obligated to exclude that observation when considering the origin of semiosis on this planet? Will excluding the observation reverse the material requirements?

I do intend to at least begin to directly address your questions by this weekend.

Excellent. I’ll repeat them here for convenience: >> Which one of the observations at the top of this page have you shown (or can show) to be false? >> Have you shown, or can you show an example of invalid logic in the conclusions stemming from the observations at the top of this page? >> Do you believe that the working scientists and researchers who are proponents of biosemiosis (even those who profess complete methodological materialism in their discipline) are incorrect in their assessment that the translation of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state? If so, how are they mistaken, and what would you say to them to correct their error(s)? Upright BiPed

Alan , unfortunately, you've made yourself perfectly clear... AF: Upright Biped your argument is 'incoherent'. UB: What's incoherent about it? AF: I can't say, but it's 'impossible to parse'. UB: Well... what terms do you think are ambiguous? AF: I'm not going to say, but there's no doubt you are 'refusing to clarify' them. UB: If you can't say, then how can you even say it's incoherent? AF: Never mind about that. I've made my point. I'm moving on. Upright BiPed

Is this Keith’s refutation?

1. Evolution requires a mechanism for the transfer of recorded information.

Yes.

2. The transfer of recorded information depends in all cases on an irreducibly complex core.

Yes.

3. The core cannot be provided by evolution, because evolution cannot even begin unless the core is already present.

Evolution by means of the transfer and translation of recorded information cannot begin until recorded information and a mechanism to transfer and translate it are present. Therefore evolution cannot be the origin of that system.

4. The core cannot be provided by ‘chance and necessity’, because it is too complex.

“Too complex” is a hopelessly vague (rhetorically loaded and useless) characterization, but in principle, there is no prohibition to chance and necessity being the origin of the system. Chance and necessity are not discounted as the origin simply because the system is “too complex”; they are discounted because there exist not one single shred of evidence anywhere in the real world that they are capable of producing the material requirements of system. On the other hand, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming and absolute (as in universal).

5. Therefore, the Designer did it.

This is not a part of the argument. The conclusion at the top of this page is that “the transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information. It’s an arbitrary relationship instantiated in matter”, and the conclusion of the earlier argument is that “the search for an answer to the rise of the recorded information in the genome needs to focus on mechanisms that can give rise to a semiotic state, since that is the way we find it.” The argument I’ve made, and its conclusions, are about the facts on the ground. You operate under the idea that chance and necessity can account for those facts; and I do not. But neither of those positions changes the facts on the ground. In other words, you are arguing against the validity of the observations and logic because you don’t like to additional hurdle it creates for a conclusion which you prefer. That is understandable if viewed solely from an ideological perspective, but it changes nothing whatsoever about the reality.

In reality, evolution can begin as soon as there is heritable variation with differential reproductive success. Molecules that self-replicate with imperfect fidelity fit the bill.

Firstly, you steadfastly refuse to incorporate (or account for) what is known at the material level. This is the main reason why talking with you is fruitless in terms of communicating about real world material consequences. You say that evolution can begin “as soon as” there is differential reproductive success, but you fail to incorporate the fundamental requirements of that reality. Darwinian evolution functions by variation to an informational medium, a physical genotypic record, entirely distinct from the phenotype that it produces. That cannot happen without the material conditions described in the argument. This does not establish that chance and necessity cannot produce those material conditions; but it (necessarily) established the conditions which must be met in order to accomplish what must be accomplished. It is nothing more than avoidance to pretend otherwise. One gets the impression that you’d like to look to deterministic systems and establish a beachhead on the problem of having an arbitrary relationship instantiated in a physical system. Fine, provide an example. Upright BiPed

I mean "even granting the conclusion of that chain of propositions arguendo..." Reciprocating Bill

Well, Bill, it's amazing how you just can't seem to bring yourself to comment upon how incoherent it all is and just wish us all the best and move on. Does it bother you that you're making your partners in crime look bad by not toeing the party line? Mung

UB, would you please clarify the following: I asked,

Please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state… Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

You responded to the first with "massive organization (i.e. living agents)" and the second with "inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial condition [and] any process that requires recorded information in order to function." However, you also stated that this response "doesn’t flow from semiotic theory per se, it flows from universal observation of the physical world" (e.g., from "universal experience" and "observation.") My questions about this: Does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? Conversely, does semiotic theory per se assert that a particular class or classes of mechanism cannot create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state? If either, how does that constraint flow from the theory itself, "per se?" If neither, how can the theory itself can be said to constrain the set of possible causal mechanisms? Would it not be silent on causation? Also, within your framework, do not living agents (displaying massive organization) require recorded information to function? Would not living agents therefore be excluded from consideration because they are processes that require recorded information in order to function? I see a short circuit between your answer to my first question and your answer to my second. I do intend to at least begin to directly address your questions by this weekend. However, even granting the conclusion of that chain of propositions, I don't see anything that speaks to causation, and therefore what the theory per se has to do with either designed or unguided causation. Reciprocating Bill

Alan Fox:

I am reminded of the old Arab proverb: Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe.

And THAT sums up TSZ rather nicely-> All they can do is bark while science passes them by. For their next trick they will roll over and piss themselves... Joe

Alan Fox:

Your critics are just being obtuse...

They just are obtuse.

... and the scales of skepticism will eventually fall from their eyes.

Right after hell freezes over... Joe

well keiths, I've been carefully watching your self-replicating molecule and I haven't seen it self-replicate once. Something appears to be missing. Is it perhaps asleep? Does it need to eat first? Maybe play some music? Mung

It seems to be incoherent only to certain visitors from TSZ. What's in the water over there? Mung

I am reminded of the old Arab proverb: Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe. Alan Fox

What is this ambiguity you keep claiming exist?

Upright Biped, I have never used the word "ambiguous" in relation to your arguments. I think they are incoherent. It's not a problem. The possibilities, I guess, are twofold at least. One: Your argument breaks the mould and advances the breadth of human knowledge. Your critics are just being obtuse and the scales of skepticism will eventually fall from their eyes. Two: Your argument is, in fact, incoherent. Not sure where you go from here but best of luck! Alan Fox

keiths' argument: Srm is a self replicating molecule. Srm self-replicates, creating a copy of Srm, call it Srm2. Therefore there was a transfer of recorded information from Srm to Srm2. Therefore, no semiotic system is required for the transfer of recorded information. That's his alleged "rebuttal." What a joke. Mung

keiths:

While you’re waiting impatiently, Upright, how about responding to my rebuttal of your argument?

Obvioulsy you do NOT understand what a "rebuttal" is and obvioulsy you have no idea what UB's argument is as you have shown no indication that you understand it. Joe

Mung @986: LOL! Eric Anderson

Petrushka:

But suppose we do a little thought experiment. Let’s agree that gpuccio’s definition entails a threshold. Say 150 bits. That implies that 149 bits does not trigger the dFSCI indicator. The number is arbitrary, but gpuccio’s paradigm requires a threshold.

You mean the number is not connected by any direct physical mechanism? Maybe you need to define what you mean by arbitrary! Mung

Toronto:

Information transferred without a “representation instantiated in matter”: 1) The water level is higher, therefore water has been added to the pool.

Do you ever stop talking long enough to think? That's a complete non sequitur. If you want to rely on irrational arguments go right ahead, but I have no obligation to accept your nonsensical conclusion. In fact, I measured the water level in the pool and the water level was actually lower! Mung

Toronto on November 13, 2012 at 7:45 pm said:

You’ve defined “information” as being arbitrary.

Why, because it's not connected by any direct physical mechanism? Maybe you need to define what you mean by arbitrary! Mung

Toronto:

Take some objects and throw them into a pool of water.

ok. I took some drops of water and threw them into a pool of water.

The ones that float are lighter than water and the ones that sink to the bottom are heavier.

I had some difficulty ascertaining the trajectory of each of the drops of water once they hit the pool of water.

No “representation instantiated in matter” was used to transfer this “information”.

What information. Mung

Toronto:

UBP/Mung, we at least now know that “arbitrary” is not what onlooker has attempted to define.

Congratulations. We've known it now for hundreds of posts. And all those assertions by onlooker that she's defined or attempted to define arbitrary are false. A sham. A subterfuge. An excuse for not engaging in real debate.

So, what is the definition of “arbitrary” as UBP uses it?

Read the freaking thread. Mung

Bill, you were implying a total refutation of my argument as far back as 2011, so I am suprprised that the simple question "Have you done so?" has caught you so unprepared. Take all the time you need. Upright BiPed

UB:

You failed to answer a single question regarding your position. Since you are defending your position as much as attacking mine, shall we assume from your lack of response that you do not wish your position to be subject to evaluation?

LOL! I first posed those questions to you in July during the course of our discussion at TSZ, but you abandoned the thread rather than respond. I repeatedly re-posted those questions many, many times. You acknowledged seeing them in September, but made an excuse about attending to Onlooker and still did not respond. Now you post a a few questions, and a few hours later and you leap to that conclusion? I'm busy with professional responsibilities. I'll respond later, maybe tomorrow, perhaps this weekend. Reciprocating Bill

Alan,

It is not productive to rebut incoherence.

This is yet another simple assertion which you refuse to support. Why do you refuse to support your assertions? Doesn't some sense of intellectual embarrassment not drive you to support the claims you make? If you can articulate an ambiguity in the terms of the argument at the top of this page, then I will address it. What is this ambiguity you keep claiming exist? Upright BiPed

Bill, You asked a set of questions of me, which I answered each directly. I then posed a set of questions for you. You failed to answer a single question regarding your position. Since you are defending your position as much as attacking mine, shall we assume from your lack of response that you do not wish your position to be subject to evaluation?

I take this response as your assent that semiotic theory, as you have articulated it, itself does not constrain answers to my questions above, but is instead silent on the causation/origins of the entailments/TRI/a semiotic state.

On the contrary, understanding the fundamental material conditions required for the transfer of recorded information provides a valuable (and indeed necessary) understanding if we are to realistically evaluate any mechanism proposed as the originator of those material conditions. As indicated in the answers I gave you to your previous questions, the material conditions of TRI are only associated with massive pre-existing organization, and have never been observed without it. This universal observation cannot help but play a role in the evaluation of any mechanism proposed as the origin of such a system requiring those material conditions. If it does not play a role, then certainly the proposition must negate that observation with suitable evidence to the contrary. Now, as to the questions you did not answer in the previous posting: Which one of the observations at the top of this page have you shown (or can show) to be false? Have you shown, or can you show an example of invalid logic in the conclusions stemming from the observations at the top of this page? Do you believe that the working scientists and researchers who are proponents of biosemiosis (even those who profess complete methodological materialism in their discipline) are incorrect in their assessment that the translation of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state? If so, how are they mistaken, and what would you say to them to correct their error(s)? Upright BiPed

Alan Fox:

Now protein synthesis is a process, a dynamic series of events.

Therefore, protein synthesis is teleological. Funny how a committed Darwinist will appeal to teleology when desperate enough.

Surely, just on that basis, any aspect of protein synthesis can’t be described as a state, semiotic or not.

Oh really:

Specifically within switching circuit concepts, engineering students seem to enjoy creating state transition diagrams, mainly because they are easy to construct! Also, from state transition diagrams, state transition Tables can be created, and vice versa. By using biology as the data for switching circuits, engineering students can grasp the concepts of biology quicker because they use a tool that they enjoy. For example, given the well-known Table of the genetic code mapping of codons to amino acids, an engineering student may apply his or her knowledge of switching circuits to it. Perhaps an engineering student would create a state diagram for this mapping. In another application, an engineering student may create a state diagram for proteins, where a beginning state is methionine and the three final states would be stop codons. Or perhaps an engineering student will identify that the redundant sixty-four to twenty mapping of codons to amino acids becomes data for a switching circuit with “don’t care” inputs. By looking at biological processes as switching circuits, the engineering student gains knowledge of biology and the full relevance of engineering principles to other disciplines.

The Switching Circuits of Biology Mung

onlooker, the proven liar and troll, continues to troll:

D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument?

No.

If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

That's not a definition.

Put up or shut up.

Now there's a convincing argument. Troll Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

Just to be clear, I take this response as your assent that semiotic theory, as you have articulated it, itself does not constrain answers to my questions above, but is instead silent on the causation/origins of the entailments/TRI/a semiotic state.

And to be absolutely clear there isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can produce semiotic processes, including transcription and translation. There isn't even any way to test the claim that unguided evolution could produce such a process. OTOH there is plenty of evidence for intelligent agencies producing semiotic processes... Joe

Alan Fox:

I am not aware of any convincing argument derived solely from logic rather than observation, experiment, measurement of reality that has been useful to the scientific community.

And that proves that the theory of evolution is not useful as it is not based on observation, experiment and measurement of reality. And Alan, it is because nucleotides REPRESENT amino acids that makes transcription and translation a semiotic process.

As I said, and others have said, clumping protein synthesis into a set of processes you call semiotic makes no sense.

Perhaps not to you, but then again nothing you say makes any sense. Joe

Just noticed: Reciprocating Bill is asking Upright Biped about "semiotic states". Now protein synthesis is a process, a dynamic series of events. Surely, just on that basis, any aspect of protein synthesis can't be described as a state, semiotic or not. So how does UB decide on what is in his semiotic set? Are they states, processes, events, things? Alan Fox

My statements on the issue are made solely from a material perspective.

Of course they should be, from my perspective they cannot be otherwise. Reality and imagination are orthogonal! I am not aware of any convincing argument derived solely from logic rather than observation, experiment, measurement of reality that has been useful to the scientific community.

Do you care to articulate any ambiguity in the terms of the argument, or shall you remain (perhaps forever) content to defend your position through unsupported beliefs?

As I said, and others have said, clumping protein synthesis into a set of processes you call semiotic makes no sense. It is not productive to rebut incoherence. This is why people have asked for clarification. This is why it is hard for you to keep people's attention. I am not defending anything. I am quite happy to admit, and have never implied otherwise, that I have no expertise except a little in biochemistry and I am quite content leave you to develop your argument into something that will get people's attention. You ain't there yet. Alan Fox

RB:

Specifically, tell us how semiotic theory itself constrains the answers to these questions [about the mechanisms/causes that result in the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state]. If, for example, you assert that agency is required to cause, result in, or give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, tell us why that flows from semiotic theory as you articulate it.

UB:

It doesn’t flow from semiotic theory per se, it flows from universal observation of the physical world.

Thank you for you candor. Just to be clear, I take this response as your assent that semiotic theory, as you have articulated it, itself does not constrain answers to my questions above, but is instead silent on the causation/origins of the entailments/TRI/a semiotic state. Reciprocating Bill

Upright BiPed,

950 + comments, and not even a shred of a refutation.

950+ comments and not even a shred of an attempt to make your word salad coherent. D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? Put up or shut up. onlooker

Alan Fox,

Indeed, I think that protein synthesis as a process has nothing to do with semiotics

Yes, but as you have repeatedly demonstrated, you make assertions which you then refuse to support with evidence and reason. This is a defensive mechanism which only serves to isolate your position from any inconvenient aspects of reality.

Pattee’s remark that “life is matter controlled by symbols” is merely anthropomorphism.

And here is another unsupported assertion. Not only is it unsupported, it is also uneducated. Pattee, as a Professor Emeritus of Physics, has studied the material constraints brought on by the presence of information in material systems for almost half a century. He was speaking specifically from a material perspective. You should attempt to educate yourself on these matters in place of making ill-concieved statements. Perhaps you could start here: The physics of symbols…Howard Pattee

I am not really making a claim about reality...

That is understandable (given your position) but then why do you involve yourself in conversations about reality, particularly when you’ve shown that you are uninterested in what that reality is?

Upright Biped makes an ill-defined assertion that semiosis, the study of signs and symbols in communication is a set of processes that can encompass biochemical reactions.

My statements on the issue are made solely from a material perspective. Positioning them as “ill-defined” is yet another assertion without support. Do you care to articulate any ambiguity in the terms of the argument, or shall you remain (perhaps forever) content to defend your position through unsupported beliefs? Upright BiPed

Alan Fox, Reality says that transcription and translation is a semiotic process BY DEFINITION. Ya see Alan the nucleotides code for, ie represent, an amino acid. Nucleotides do not become the amino acid. And blind and undirected processes just cannot produce a semiotic state. So you lose, again, as usual. As for how it impacts the theory of evolution, well it is just another aspect, of many, that the theory cannot explain. IOW it is just something else that proves the theory of evolution is a useless and worthless heuristic. Joe

Upright Biped Indeed, I think that protein synthesis as a process has nothing to do with semiotics. Pattee's remark that "life is matter controlled by symbols" is merely anthropomorphism. I am not really making a claim about reality, I am making a semantic observation. Upright Biped makes an ill-defined assertion that semiosis, the study of signs and symbols in communication is a set of processes that can encompass biochemical reactions. This stretches the concept of semiosis beyond any scientific usefulness. As mung points out, this does render UB's argument not very interesting to me, simply because it is, even if you allow for the sake of argument that in the context of his own definitions it might be right, scientifically useless. It is not a matter of refuting claims, it is a matter of observing that the attempt to put protein synthesis under an umbrella called "semiosis"is not even wrong. Further, allowing for the sake of argument that protein synthesis, or an aspect of it, could be called semiotic, then so what? We still have the hill to climb about whether calling something semiotic means it must have been designed. And then so what? How does being able to call something semiotic impinge on the theory of evolution, or indeed on the theory of ID if there were one? Alan Fox

Reciprocating Bill and his ilk are just upset because their position has nothing- no supporting evidence because they don't even have any objective criteria from which to make an inference. Joe

Has Keith presented an example of a self-replicating molecule where we can analyze its components and their functions?

He posted some symbols on a web page that he claims represent a self-replicating molecule, but they held no recorded information, so I would say no. Mung

Reciprocating Bill,

Please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Our universal experience is that semiotic states rise only (or are in operation only) from massive organization (i.e. living agents). There is no evidence to the contrary. I would start there.

Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Again, I refer to observation; inanimate matter acted upon by physical law from any identifiable initial condition provides no examples of producing semiotic states. I would also add to this any process that requires recorded information in order to function, such as Darwinian evolution as it is documented to function in living things.

Specifically, tell us how semiotic theory itself constrains the answers to these questions. If, for example, you assert that agency is required to cause, result in, or give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, tell us why that flows from semiotic theory as you articulate it.

It doesn’t flow from semiotic theory per se, it flows from universal observation of the physical world.

Lastly, if your theory has nothing to say on causation – if the entire output of your efforts is “it will therefore require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state” yet semiotic theory is silent on mechanism/causation of the entailments/TRI/a semiotic state – what good is it?

Knowing what has to be accomplished in order to transfer recorded information is an advancement in knowledge if your subject of interest is dependent on the transfer of recorded information. - - - - - - - - And now I have some questions for you. Which one of the observations at the top of this page have you shown (or can show) to be false? Have you shown, or can you show an example of invalid logic in the conclusions stemming from the observations at the top of this page? Do you believe that the working scientists and researchers who are proponents of biosemiosis (even those who profess complete methodological materialism in their discipline) are incorrect in their assessment that the translation of recorded information from the genome demonstrates a semiotic state? If so, how are they mistaken, and what would you say to them to correct their error(s)? Upright BiPed

UB, now that I have your attention, I'll ask yet again the following, the abandoned next step in our previous conversation: Please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Specifically, tell us how semiotic theory itself constrains the answers to these questions. If, for example, you assert that agency is required to cause, result in, or give rise to the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state, tell us why that flows from semiotic theory as you articulate it. Lastly, if your theory has nothing to say on causation – if the entire output of your efforts is “it will therefore require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state” yet semiotic theory is silent on mechanism/causation of the entailments/TRI/a semiotic state – what good is it? Reciprocating Bill

950 + comments, and not even a shred of a refutation. Upright BiPed

“life and semiosis are coextensive” >>Professor Emeritus Thomas Sebeok, Indiana University “the basic unit of life is the sign, not the molecule” >> Professor Emeritus Jesper Hoffmeyer, Institute of Biology, University of Copenhagen “life is matter controlled by symbols” >> Professor Emeritus of Physics, Howard Pattee, New York State University “semiosis not only is a fact of life but is ‘the’ fact that allowed life to emerge from inanimate matter” >> Marcello Barbieri, Department of Morphology and Embryology, University of Ferrarra “I think the attempt to link semiosis to protein synthesis just fails utterly” >> Alan Fox :| Upright BiPed

Apparently cybernetics, semiotics, and biosemiotics didn’t exist prior to the formulation of Upright BiPed’s argument.

I told them the same thing. It doesn’t matter. Upright BiPed

Ahh, the clairvoyant Reciprocating Bill returns to UD with a 1400-word justification of himself. I will use significantly less words in response to it. Besides, his position has already been addressed too many times to count. He calls my use of the word entailment “muddled”. But what exactly was my use of the word entailment?

UB: There is a list of physical entailments of recorded information that can therefore be generalized and compiled without regard to the source of the information. In other words, the list is only about the physical entailments of the information, not its source. I am using the word “entailment” in the standard sense – to impose as a necessary result (Merriam-Webster). These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer.

Yep. First, I used the word, and then I gave the dictionary definition of that word, and then I used the dictionary definition in place of the word itself. (lol) This is an excellent indication of the formidable front put up at TSZ. What Bill fails to recognize is a distinction between the argument and the evidence within empiricism. One always has supremacy over the other. Instead (following his training perhaps) he wants to argue endlessly over the argument - and he’s become exasperated. He started his counter-attack by stating upfront that his claim “did not turn" on the evidence – and he was wrong. Upright BiPed

Has Keith presented an example of a self-replicating molecule where we can analyze its components and their functions? Upright BiPed

Alan, In your previous comment to me, you made an assertion and then did nothing whatsoever (and in zero) to back it up. Now you’ve come back to do the exactly the same thing (as in precisely the same thing). This is what an unsupported assertions looks like:

First assertion: “…as this is where his argument really falls apart for me. I think the attempt to link semiosis to protein synthesis just fails utterly”. Supporting evidence: Zero - - - - - - - - Second assertion: “…attempting to shoehorn protein synthesis into a set of processes that you call “semiotic” simply fails”. Supporting evidence: Zero

The only reasonable conclusion is that you have nothing to support your assertions. Upright BiPed

I think perhaps I've found the tool for creating self replication. http://selflanguage.org/ Mung

Apparently cybernetics, semiotics, and biosemiotics didn't exist prior to the formulation of Upright BiPed's argument. Mung

Mung:

Can someone post an example, based upon observation, in which the transfer of recorded information was not semiotic?

Sure, it happens with those self-replicating molecules. :) Hey, don't blame me. An impossible hypothetical scenario deserves a hypothetical molecule! Eric Anderson

Reciprocating Bill:

- Third is UB’s related claim that it is an empirical observation, and not simply a definition, that results in the claim that “the transfer of information is by necessity semiotic”:

Wow. I missed the rebuttal. Is that what I get for blinking at such a crucial moment? [Diary: Blinking is evidence of poor design.] Can someone post an example, based upon observation, in which the transfer of recorded information was not semiotic? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

Fourth is the Silence of the Bipeds on the question of the origins of the entailments/the TRI/semiotic states – which one might have assumed was the point of the entire empty exercise.

The Silence of the Detractors on the question of the origins of the entailments/the TRI/semiotic states was the point. Your failure to adequately identify and respond to the point demonstrates that the exercise was not empty. The OP still awaits a rebuttal of either the logic or the evidence. Mung

Alan Fox posts, but has nothing interesting to say about the argument other than it wasn’t what he thought it was.

I hope that doesn't mean he's no longer interested. We really need someone to take up the vacuum left by onlooker's forays into the thread. Mung

keiths:

Indeed, I am almost certain (from long experience) that Upright would like to avoid my questions by focusing instead on irrelevant details.

More irony. Irrelevant details like the ones set out in the OP? Irrelevant details like logic and empirical facts? The ones you assiduously avoid?

First let’s consider the simplest type of self-replication, in which a molecule S generates a copy of itself by reacting directly with its components (C0, C1, …Cn):

How do you know that's the simplest type of self-replication? What facts are you relying on? What theoretical studies can you refer us to? I say there is no such thing as a self-replicator, so there is no such thing as a "simplest type" of self-replicator.

1. Has recorded information been transferred from the original molecule S to its copy?

You haven't recorded any information, so you haven't copied or transferred any recorded information. Mung

Return of the Lying Troll aka onlooker onlooker:

Apparently I am doomed to disappointment.

At least you admit you are the cause of your own disappointment. onlooker:

Then you carefully refrain from quoting or answering my questions.

A lie. onlooker:

No, your questions are quite clearly an attempt at evasion. If really wanted people to understand your argument, you would answer their questions directly.

And you know it's a lie, and there's the proof. That makes you a liar, even under the "weak definition" preferred by you and your ilk over at TSZ. onlooker:

If really wanted people to understand your argument, you would answer their questions directly.

A non sequitur. So not only are you a demonstrable liar, you fail at elementary reasoning. onlooker:

You never even attempted to amend his summary as he repeatedly requested...

So? onlooker:

your behavior is indistinguishable from that of an intellectual coward

Your behavior is indistinguishable from that of a troll. A dishonest hypocritical troll, at that. Proud of yourself? Mung

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker at 905, Keith’s reformulation of my argument added extraneous issues to the argument which do exist in the original. This fact was explained immediately after he presented his reformulation. He promptly ignored that correction. He, like you, is desperate to revamp the argument because he cannot refute it.

You never even attempted to amend his summary as he repeatedly requested, just as you have never attempted to answer my questions in good faith. Whatever your actual motivations, your behavior is indistinguishable from that of an intellectual coward who knows he can't actually support his argument and so hides behind obfuscation and bluster. onlooker

Upright BiPed, At 909 you quote part of what I wrote at 904:

Onlooker at 904,

As already discussed, your attempt to distract from your repeated failure to answer direct questions about your incoherent “argument” by asking me questions is a transparent evasion tactic. Here’s the meat of my response, from my comment 864:

Then you carefully refrain from quoting or answering my questions. That doesn't exactly demonstrate intellectual integrity.

Firstly, the questions I asked you were intended to get you to engage in the answers to your questions, But you have no interest so.

No, your questions are quite clearly an attempt at evasion. If really wanted people to understand your argument, you would answer their questions directly.

Secondly, the "meat" of your response is (once again) all about redefining the definition of "materially arbitrary" in terms of a mechanism.

Incorrect. Here is the bit you cut:

Note the bolding in the previous quoted passage and in this one. See the difference? You switch from "inexorable law" to "physical law", which probably explains why you’ve avoided directly answering this question I’ve posed repeatedly: Does "law" mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? As near as I can tell, you’re claiming that because there are other conceivable relationships between nucleotide triplets and amino acids that could have existed, the one that does exist is not "reducible to physical law". That, combined with your repeated use of the word "inexorable", suggests that you do not consider stochastic mechanisms to be covered by the word "law". All that’s fine — your argument, your definitions. However, your words don’t change reality. In fact, every process in the transcription and translation cascade can be described without invoking any violations of chemistry or physics. If you are suggesting that the relationship we observe could not have arisen without some violation of chemistry and physics, you’ve got a lot more work to do to support such an assertion. In addition to all the other questions you’ve avoided answering, we’re back to one you ran away from at The Skeptical Zone: How does your argument, assuming you ever make it coherent, support ID?

I'm not trying to redefine anything -- I'm trying to get you to make your definitions coherent. You're using terms like "law", "inexorable law", and "physical law" in your argument. In order to understand your argument, those terms must be clearly defined.

As already stated, the mechanism of the system's origin does not change the material relationship between the representation and the effect. That relationship is materially arbitrary (and indeed must be so) regardless of whatever mechanism established it. This is not only a universal observation regarding information transfer, but is also a logical necessity. You cannot refute it.

I can't refute it because, like your overall argument, it incoherent. Clarifying your meaning by answering my simple questions would go a long way to making your word salad more sensible. I don't get the impression you're actually interested in doing that, though. Surprise me. onlooker

(Sorry, bad blockquote in previous.) Upright BiPed, I returned from traveling for work for a few days with high hopes that you will have finally answered my simple, direct questions. Apparently I am doomed to disappointment.

Onlooker in 903

UB: I have defined them. But you keep asking me to redefine them in terms of the mechanism which might establish the relationship. Onlooker: No, I am asking you to define them clearly and I have asked very direct and straightforward questions about your definition that you have consistently avoided answering. Here they are again: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

Firstly, you say want me to clearly define my use of the term "arbitrary", but time and time again you’ve been asked to articulate any ambiguity in the definition already given. You have failed to do so.

Incorrect. I read everything you wrote while you carefully evaded providing a coherent definition and came up with D3. I have asked you repeatedly if that definition corresponds to yours and, if not, exactly what essential characteristics it lacks. You spew hundreds of words without ever answering those simple questions. It's almost as though you are afraid of making your points clearly. After all, that could lead to them being refuted. So, let's try again. Here is what I understand you are attempting to communicate when you use the word "arbitrary": D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? onlooker

Upright BiPed, I returned from traveling for work for a few days with high hopes that you will have finally answered my simple, direct questions. Apparently I am doomed to disappointment.

Onlooker in 903

UB: I have defined them. But you keep asking me to redefine them in terms of the mechanism which might establish the relationship. Onlooker: No, I am asking you to define them clearly and I have asked very direct and straightforward questions about your definition that you have consistently avoided answering. Here they are again: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

Firstly, you say want me to clearly define my use of the term "arbitrary", but time and time again you’ve been asked to articulate any ambiguity in the definition already given. You have failed to do so.

Incorrect. I read everything you wrote while you carefully evaded providing a coherent definition and came up with D3. I have asked you repeatedly if that definition corresponds to yours and, if not, exactly what essential characteristics it lacks. You spew hundreds of words without ever answering those simple questions. It's almost as though you are afraid of making your points clearly. After all, that could lead to them being refuted. So, let's try again. Here is what I understand you are attempting to communicate when you use the word "arbitrary": D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

onlooker

Abstract In this paper we review and argue for the relevance of the concept of open-ended evolution in biological theory. Defining it as a process in which a set of chemical systems bring about an unlimited variety of equivalent systems that are not subject to any pre-determined upper bound of organizational complexity, we explain why only a special type of self-constructing, autonomous systems can actually implement it. We further argue that this capacity derives from the ‘dynamic decoupling’ (in its minimal or most basic sense: the phenotype–genotype decoupling) by means of which a radically new way of material organization (minimal living organization) is achieved, allowing for the long-term sustenance of systems whose individual-metabolic and collective-historical pathways become thereafter deeply intertwined. Enabling conditions for ‘open-ended evolution’

Mung

keiths:

We can talk about self-replicating molecules in the abstract, just as Upright talks about semiotic systems in the abstract.

Here's the difference. Semiotic systems exist. They OUGHT to be explained. (Yes, there's that horrid word again, showing your shallow metaphysics for all to see.) Self-replicating molecules do not exist except in the abstract. Therefore, they need no explanation unless it's an explanation for the existence of beings of reason. (Showing yet again your shallow metaphysics.) Yet you CHOOSE (Yes, there's that horrid word again, showing even more so your shallow metaphysics) to these things that exist only as a matter of reasoning and attempt to use them to explain something that does exist. Showing, for all to see, your poor science. Using the unknown and simply hypothetical to explain something that is actual. What should we take from this? Perhaps that bad metaphysics leads to bad science? Mung

Reciprocating Bill:

IOW, it follows from UB’s premises that the existence of the sort of designer we all know he wishes to infer from “the material observations” is excluded at the outset by those very premises.

So? Mung

Alan Fox posts, but has nothing interesting to say about the argument other than it wasn't what he thought it was. Reciprocating Bill posts and claims his original objections were never addressed, even though they clearly were, as anyone reading this thread should well know. So, we're off to a rousing start. 941 posts and waiting. Mung

And keiths proves that he is a worthless coward that shouldn't be responded to:

Joe gets it right for once:

Prediction- Upright Biped’s response (930), will be seen by the TSZ ilk, as an evasion.

Indeed, I am almost certain (from long experience) that Upright would like to avoid my questions by focusing instead on irrelevant details. Fortunately, that’s not necessary. We can talk about self-replicating molecules in the abstract, just as Upright talks about semiotic systems in the abstract.

Nope, either you have a real-world example or you don't. And obvioulsy you don't so you lose. Obvioulsy keiths has no idea what science is nor how it operates. BTW keiths, all YOU ever do is focus on irrelevant tangents. And you still don't understand nested hierarchies... Joe

Great RB is back but still has nothing to say. Sure he posted a lot of words but he has never given any indication that he understands the argument and seems to want to obfuscate rather than engage. And in the end if your position had any evidence, any at all, to support its claims then you would just post them and UB would be refuted. So it is very telling that you chose the tactic that you are using. Joe

I see that Uncommon Descent has restored my original posting privileges. Because Upright Biped has repeatedly mischaracterized the import of our previous discussions at TSZ, and in the spirit of the recent cross conversation between UD and TSZ, let me take this opportunity to post the a reply I recently posted to him at TSZ. I've removed links to avert this post being ensnared in a spam filter; you may consult my original post at TSZ if interested in following those links. Upright challenged Alan to link to someone – anyone – who has identified logical problems or ambiguities in his argument. He claims that there have been no such objections. Drawing upon previous TSZ threads spanning April 15 to July 20 I will here summarize a few of mine. None of the following objections and observations have been successfully rebutted, in my judgment. - First is UB’s muddled use of “entailment.” During the course of his participation at TSZ UB pivoted from one use of “entailment” to another, an equivocation that exemplified what is muddled about his understanding of entailment and implication, and indeed what is muddled about his entire presentation. On April 18, at the outset of this discussion, I anticipated that ambiguity: UB

Demonstrating a system that satisfies the entailments (physical consequences) of recorded information, also confirms the existence of a semiotic state.”

RB:

It simply would not follow from an observation that all known instances of semiotic information transfer (all of which are instances of human symbolic or representational communication) exhibit your “material entailments” that all systems exhibiting these “entailments” are necessarily semiotic, convey semiotic information, or have semiotic origins. Unless, of course, you are simply defining “semiotic” as “exhibits these material entailments,” in which case to assert that “a system that satisfies the entailments (physical consequences) of recorded information, also confirms the existence of a semiotic state” is a tautology that gets you no further than did proposing your definition.

First notice that Biped characterizes his “entailments” as “physical consequences of recorded information.” He doesn’t identify them as “necessary and sufficient conditions for the transfer of recorded information,” as he does following his pivot. There is no reading of “physical consequences of” that yields “necessary and sufficient conditions for” without acknowledging severe ambiguity in the former. When he employs “entailment” in this sense of “physical consequences,” his claim that observing such consequences “successfully confirms a semiotic state” commits the error of implication that was subsequently discussed at length on that thread. Nor was this an isolated mispeaking. I later showed that, in his missives to Larry Moran and to Lizzie, UB repeatedly employed similarly logically flawed reasoning in which his later revised, “post pivot” use of “entailment” is nowhere to be found. Notice also that, in the above quoted passage, I anticipated his later pivot at the outset of our discussion. On April 26 I similarly remarked:

It only follows that “Demonstrating a system that satisfies the entailments (physical consequences) of recorded information, also confirms the existence of a semiotic state” if you define a “semiotic state” as “a system that demonstrates these ‘entailments.’” In which case this “confirmation” is tautological.

This again anticipates Biped’s later pivot to using “entailment” not in the sense of entailments that are “physical consequences”, but in the sense that if a phenomenon has occurred, observation of necessary and sufficient conditions for the phenomenon is “entailed.” This is a more or less useless form of “entailment” that, as deployed by Biped in this discussion, assumes its conclusions, almost exactly as I anticipated in the quoted passages above. I identified that uselessness at the moment of his pivot: Biped:

Bill, if a specific thing only exist under specific conditions, then does it existence entail the existence of those specific conditions?

RB:

Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment.” Not a very useful entailment, however, as you must already know that a phenomenon has both necessary and sufficient conditions, and what they are, before reaching your conclusion that those conditions obtained.

I repeated the latter observation perhaps six or seven times (more?), but UB never responded to that objection in any way, and later pointedly quote-mined my response in a way that removed that objection. It remains wholly unrebutted. Rather, Biped seemed to think that his completion of a pivot from a use of “entailment” in a sense that yields reasoning beset by a fatal logical flaw to a sense that is useless because it assumes its conclusions was a decisive moment in the discussion, and rescued him from the observation that he really doesn’t understand how to use entailment in a scientific context. He also seems to think that my observation of one set of intractable problems prior to his pivot and a second set of problems post-pivot represented a “concession” on my part. Neither was the case. - Second is Biped’s unwillingness, and apparently his inability, to state what “a semiotic state” entails that “the transfer of information” does not. That question was posed to him perhaps 20 times. He offered only non-responsive replies (e.g. restating his definitions of “a semiotic state” and “the TRI” without responding to the question). - Third is UB’s related claim that it is an empirical observation, and not simply a definition, that results in the claim that “the transfer of information is by necessity semiotic”: UB:

I make the claim that recorded information is – by necessity – semiotic. I make that claim squarely upon material observation, and I challenge you or anyone else to demonstrate otherwise.

RB:

Help me to understand this. What does “semiotic” entail that “the transfer of recorded information” does not? Absent a response, you cannot claim to discern, even in principle, in what way an instance of “the transfer of recorded information” that is not also a semiotic state would differ from one that is. To justify your claim that this is an “material observation,” you need to specify that difference.

Yet another objection that remains wholly unrebutted. - Fourth is the Silence of the Bipeds on the question of the origins of the entailments/the TRI/semiotic states – which one might have assumed was the point of the entire empty exercise. UB:

Good grief. The argument doesn’t claim the entailments cause information transfer; it says they are the necessary material conditions of information transfer.

Never mind the question of how something can be “the necessary material conditions for” something else without being regarded as the cause of that something else (more muddle). I responded:

So, then, the entailments do not cause the transfer of recorded information/a semiotic state. They are the necessary and sufficient material conditions of (for?) the transfer of recorded information/a semiotic state, yet they are not the cause of the TRI/a semiotic state… also unanswered is, “what are the causes of the four entailments?” The answer cannot be “the transfer of recorded information/a semiotic state,” as your italicized use of “consequence” is not to be construed as a claim that the entailments arise as a consequence of TRI/a semiotic state… Semiotic theory is therefore silent on the causes of the phenomenon it purports to explain – the events observed in the transcription of DNA into proteins. Nothing in the claimed relationship between the entailments and the TRI/a semiotic state speaks to causation. Because silent on the causes of the phenomenon it labors so mightily to frame, it is perforce also silent on competing causal claims such as “the events observed in the transcription of DNA into proteins arose through (because of) natural unguided processes” (replication and selection, for example).

And, of course, later: RB:

Upright Biped, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state. Lastly, if your theory has nothing to say on causation – if the entire output of your efforts is “it will therefore require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state” yet semiotic theory is silent on mechanism/causation – what good is it?

- And last, for now, I would like to recall the first comment I made on these threads: UB:

1) In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?)

RB:

Seems to me his 1) excludes, by definition, a non-material designer, which would certainly represent and transfer information by non-material means.

IOW, it follows from UB’s premises that the existence of the sort of designer we all know he wishes to infer from “the material observations” is excluded at the outset by those very premises. - Reciprocating Bill Reciprocating Bill

Joe @936: Yeah, the ligase ribozyme is sometimes thrown out as an example, driven partly by the paper by Paul and Joyce, A self-replicating ligase ribozyme. Unfortunately, despite some clever engineering on their part, it is not an example of a self-replicating molecule. They did some good work, but the primary takeaway from their paper is how far they were from actually having a long-term sustainable self-replicating system. Never mind the fact that they weren't using just a single molecule. So, given the importance of the self-replicating molecule to the materialist creation story, I continue to wait for this entity to rear its head. Gone missing through the mists of time, no doubt, with the unicorn . . . Eric Anderson

Self-replicating molecule-> ligase ribozyme, but that is two RNAs, one for a template and one for a catalyst. One solution could be to have say one RNA that keeps collecting free nucleotides until it breaks. Then there are two that keep collecting nucleotides until they break. Then out of all these pieces a catalyst is born. Joe

The theory of evolution is meaningless without saying HOW living organisms arose because HOW they arose directly impacts HOW they evolve. As in if living organisms were designed then they were designed to evolve/ evolved by design. That you and people like you refuse to grasp that simple fact says quite a bit about your agenda. That aside, no one is shoehorning anything. Transcription and translation "is what it is" and it is a semiotic process- by DEFINITION. But then again you and your ilk seem to have quite the difficulty with the definitions of words. BTW exactly what useful insights has your position ever led to? Please be specific. Joe

Upright Biped ask?

Is this a fault? Why should an argument that specifically describes the material conditions for recorded information be forced to address TOE?

If you are confirming that your argument does indeed address the OOL rather than the ToE, then fine. I do confess to not really taking your argument seriously, among other reasons, because it did not address the ToE. Now you appear to be saying this is indeed the case. I have said before and will say again, if you think you have an argument that will lead to useful insights into the world we live in, you owe it to yourself and others to set your stall out where it will get noticed. Convincing some random commenter on some obscure internet site is not likely to achieve much.

I spent two months at TSZ defending my argument, and in that time you presented nothing. However, as you have now demonstrated, you are completely capable of posting your rebuttal here, where I will address anything you have to say.

Well, I'm not sure those who tried to get you to clarify your argument sufficiently so that they could discuss it would see it like that. My problems with your argument are that it does not have anything to do with the theory of evolution (which you seem to confirm) and that attempting to shoehorn protein synthesis into a set of processes that you call "semiotic" simply fails. Alan Fox

Can anyone point me to an example of a self-replicating molecule?

I think there are some designed ones out there. :) But really. Isn't it remarkable how the supposedly skeptical, who denigrate ID for it's missing designer, are so willing to believe in non-existent things for which there is no evidence to avoid the facts and logic of the OP? Mung

Mung @ 927 (actually this is for keiths): Can anyone point me to an example of a self-replicating molecule? I'm not arguing that such a thing is or isn't irreducibly complex at this point until I get the chance to look at the thing (nor am I trying to put any words in UB's mouth). Just trying to learn whether there is such a thing. I've been asking for years and so far no-one has been able to point me to a self-replicating molecule yet, so I'm very suspicious that this very key aspect of the whole materialist creation story is unfounded. [And to avoid wasting time back and forth, no, DNA is not self-replicating; no, a crystal is not self-replicating. Is there another example of a molecule that is?] Eric Anderson

Prediction- Upright Biped's response (930), will be seen by the TSZ ilk, as an evasion. Joe

Keith wants Mung to ask me a) if a self-replicating molecule can transfer information, and b) what the representation and protocol are in this self-replicating molecule. He also wants to know if they would therefore comprise an irreducible complex system. As for his last question, I have already stated that representations and protocols are irreducible complex. As for his first two questions, he is specifically asking me to identify objects within a system which he does not identify. This puts me in the rather awkward position of identifying objects within whatever system I might imagine, or even worse, identifying objects within whatever system he might imagine. Obviously his questions are pointless. So if he will provide an example of a self-replicating molecule, then I will analyze it and provide an answer. Upright BiPed

keiths:

Why don’t you ask Upright 1) whether self-replicating molecules can transfer “recorded information”;

What self-replicating molecules, please be specific and what recorded information do they contain, again please be specific? The safe bet is that keiths won't answer the questions... Joe

Can anyone tell us what self-replicating molecules keiths is talking about along what information they contain? Also does anyone have a clue as to why RB cannot stay focused on the topic at hand rather then trying to jump to the end? Joe

keiths:

Upright is not foolish enough to claim that self-replicating molecules are irreducibly complex, as far as I know.

I guess that means you've managed to defeat a straw-man. Grats.

Second, it’s silly to claim that self-replicating molecules cannot transfer recorded information...

Then I'm going to bet that Upright BiPed didn't make that argument and you've managed to defeat yet another straw-man. Grats again. Mung

Alan Fox:

Seems I’m currently enjoying moderation-free commenter status at Uncommon Descent!

I hope they don't strip you of your admin status and shun you over at TSZ for not being among the "banned from UD." I trust you'll exhibit enough TSZ-like behavior though to stay in their good graces. Do you really want a serious discussion, or are you going pull another 'onlooker' on us? Let me offer my opinion of why so few of us will come over there and post. It's because none of you (or too few of you) are serious. If you (pl.) were interested in serious debate there would be no reason to be banned here from UD. You can do that here. If you choose. So. The recording of information in a material system. Exhibit A. Computers. Do you dispute that a computer is a material system? Do you dispute that it is possible to record information for storage and retrieval on a modern computer? If the above two items are not in dispute, are you willing to discuss what the requirements are for that to take place? What is it, down on the really nitty gritty level, that makes computers amenable to information storage and retrieval? Or do you want to go back to what did we use before computers? Mung

RB:

UB’s “theory” as set out above remains silent on the cause of the phenomena it purports to explain.

So? I can find no mention of the words 'cause' or 'explain' in the OP. So maybe it's not mentioned on purpose.

If “the conclusion is only that some mechanism is required that can create a semiotic state,” yet semiotic theory is silent on causal mechanisms, neither providing or constraining hypotheses regarding causal mechanism, what good is it?

Why are you mistaking the title of a post for the substance of a theory, when that title isn't even the one used here at UD? And I don't see Upright BiPed making appeals to "semiotic theory" anywhere in this thread. It all seems to be originating from TSZ.

After all, we already know that the cause of a a given phenomenon must be capable of causing that phenomenon.

You claim to know this, but it seems to be often overlooked over there at TSZ. In fact, I often see appeals to Ockham's Razor in place of an adequate cause. That seems to be quite popular over there. So, your post appears to be one huge straw-man. Can you explain why Upright BiPed should defend arguments he hasn't made? Can you deal with the OP, or not? Mung

Frankly, your whole comment seems rather haphazardly thrown together, as if it were a placemat for something else – something of substance perhaps.

made me laugh =p Mung

Alan Fox, You have been posting on the Musing of Science blog that my argument was “incoherent”, and that you found it “impossible to parse”, and that I would not “clarify it”. Time and time again, I asked you to support your assertions by stating either a) any ambiguity in the terms, b) demonstrate that the conclusions do not follow from the premises, or c) that the premises are untrue. You refused at each opportunity. Then on November 7th you stated that the moderation policy at UD prevented you from directly engaging, but yet today, you found it possible to post a link to TSZ. Apparently you were mistaken about the moderation policy and perhaps only discovered your mistake when just happen to be standing near an unused UD comment box, and voila. There is therefore no reason that you cannot post your comments here where the argument is. I did however follow your link to TSZ to find the rebuttal you seem to be alluding with your derogatory comments. What I found was something less than a rebuttal. Here is a breakdown of your comment:

My personal view is that there are a couple of basic faults with UB’s argument. It appears to address origin-of-life (OOL) theories rather than the theory of evolution (ToE) and it is a default argument; “OOL fails, therefore Intelligent Design”.

Is this a fault? Why should an argument that specifically describes the material conditions for recorded information be forced to address TOE? Have you joined a group that believes that ToE addresses OoL issues? And as for addressing the failures of current OoL theories, I fail to see the problem you have here as well. Are not incomplete theories (and those that fail) subject to evaluation? Frankly, your whole comment seems rather haphazardly thrown together, as if it were a placemat for something else – something of substance perhaps. Allow me to address your comment about being a “default” theory. The argument I’ve made follows a line of logical necessities which present themselves from the general premise that recorded information transfer must have a material basis in a material universe, and that 'material basis' must be observable. You can defeat this line of logical necessities by demonstrating that the conclusions do not follow from the premises, or that the premises are untrue. You cannot defeat it by suggesting that it is a default theory. Your summary “OoL fails, therefore Intelligent Design” is completely meaningless in an empirical investigation. - - - - - - - - - - You then wrap up your critique at TSZ with a final thought:

It is a shame that UB seemed to lose interest in defending his argument before we got to the meat of the biochemistry, where I have a little knowledge, now outdated, as this is where his argument really falls apart for me. I think the attempt to link semiosis to protein synthesis just fails utterly.

Is that it, Alan? Do you really not recognize that you simply made an assertion and then followed it with absolutely nothing? I spent two months at TSZ defending my argument, and in that time you presented nothing. However, as you have now demonstrated, you are completely capable of posting your rebuttal here, where I will address anything you have to say. I look forward to you finally attempting to support your assertions. It will be a welcome change. Upright BiPed

Alan Fox:

My personal view is that there are a couple of basic faults with UB’s argument. It appears to address origin-of-life (OOL) theories rather than than the theory of evolution (ToE)

So? This means you can't appeal to the Darwinian mechanism to explain the elements that are required for Darwinian evolution to occur. Why do you think that's a fault with his argument? By fault, can we assume you mean a factual or logical deficiency? If so, what is the fault? Is it factual, or logical? Do you dispute that there is some minimal basic system required for Darwinism to take place? Do you dispute that such a system must be informational in nature? Mung

Alan Fox:

My personal view is that there are a couple of basic faults with UB’s argument. It appears to address origin-of-life (OOL) theories rather than than the theory of evolution (ToE) and it is a default argument; “OOL fails, therefore Intelligent Design”.

keiths:

He is still afraid of making an outright claim of design, but the implication is clear.

Why don't you two spend some time together coming up with a coherent rebuttal? Mung

link Alan Fox

Mung,

They ought to be stripped of the title of “skeptical.”

Elizabeth Liddle once said that she had never heard an ID argument of any merit, and that there was no case for ID that could not also be explained as the product of Darwinian evolution. I then told her of one, and after a time - when I was certain that she ‘got it’ - I eventually asked her if she would retract her claims. She refused. Later still, she eventually admitted that Darwinian evolution could not, indeed, be responsible for the organization which was the ‘first replicator’. So once again, I eventually asked her to retract her claims. Again, she refused, even though she had to concede she could not write a simulation which would generate information from scratch. She then started the Skeptical Zone with a thread based dircetly on our conversation, and has since launched three or four more threads centered (in one way or another) around that same conversation. So I joined one of those conversations, and stayed for a little over two months. The thrust of the counter-argument there was to two-fold; a) to piddle around over the word “entailment”, and b) to revamp the argument (lol) and equivocate on the logical operators used in the revamp (i.e. A->B, B->A). The result of that engagement was their eventual complete concession on both counts. And so (having won those concessions) I left. But within that thread, I asked three questions which Dr Liddle offered answers for:

UB: 1. In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?) 2. If 1 is true, then is it even conceivably possible to transfer that information without a second arrangement of matter (a protocol) to establish the relationship between representation and what it represents? (how could such a relationship be established in any other way?) 3. If 1 and 2 are true, then is it even conceivably possible to functionally transfer information without the irreducibly complex system of these two arrangements of matter (representations and protocols) in operation?

And what was Dr Liddle’s response?

Dr Liddle: 1. No 2. No 3. I don’t see why such an arrangement should be “irreducibly complex”.

So for Dr Liddle, just because she is given an ID argument based on sound logic and valid premises (in which she concedes she cannot refute) it is not a sign that the argument has any merit. And just because there are necessary conditions that Darwinian evolution cannot be responsible for, does not mean that ID can offer an argument that Darwinian evolution cannot also be responsible for. And just because there are two arrangements of matter in which it would be inconceivable to transfer information (without them working in tandem), doesn’t mean that both are needed in order to transfer information. Dr Liddle’s denial of material evidence is what powers The Skeptical Zone. Her hypocrisy-laden brand management: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken." is the high intellectual wall she needs to hide behind as she tosses her disciplinary responsibilities on the ground. Very politely she, the scientist, dismisses the material evidence. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ah well. Whether they would be stripped the title “Skeptical” or not, they’ve done nothing to distinguish themselves as capable of using it in any rationale manner.

Or maybe they just revel in the irony of it all.

Perhaps. Upright BiPed

They ought to be stripped of the title of "skeptical." Or maybe they just revel in the irony of it all. Mung

Mung, the truly astonishing thing is that for the illustrious members of the peanut gallery at TSZ, this silly front put up by Onlooker actually passes for a valid engagement of the argument. Wallowing in "arbitrary" is their sufficient response to material evidence. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed, Your refusal to modify your argument according to our arbitrary requirements and failure to reformulate it to make it acceptable to us just goes to prove that you are not really interested in defending it. Now, admit that you lack the intellectual integrity to do so and drop any claims to have an argument supporting ID. Any other response is dishonest. So there. Mung

Well, onlooker, looks like you're out of excuses. long ago Mung

Opps. correction...#910 Onlooker at 905, Keith’s reformulation of my argument added extraneous issues to the argument which do [NOT] exist in the original. This fact was explained immediately after he presented his reformulation. He promptly ignored that correction. He, like you, is desperate to revamp the argument because he cannot refute it. Upright BiPed

Onlooker, In comment #899 I posted a dozen or so examples from the 2,370,000 instances of the word "arbitrary" being used in the scholarly papers searchable within the Google Scholar database. When you come back to pepper me with more insults and ignore my requests that you finally articulate the ambiguity you insist is in my argument, will you please spend a few words explaining how all these people are able to communicate to each other using that word? I'd like you to be as specific as possible. I've read a few of those usages of the word, and will be happy to test whatever reason you give. Otherwise, please just articulate the ambiguity in my argument which you claim is there. Then you'll be able to provide that big refutation you've been promising. Upright BiPed

On October 8th:

UB: Your entire involvement here has been an attempt to massage over the unambiguous definitions given in the argument, in the hopes that you can make them malleable for a counter-argument. This has already been discussed here and here among other places. Unfortunately for you, your strategy has been transparent for the entire duration of your stay. You are now left with nothing but to return here and use the repetition of your attempts as an opportunity to sling more insults. It’s all you have left. As I have already pointed out, it’s a terrible way to have to protect your worldview.

Earlier today, Nov 5th:

Onlooker: ... your attempt to distract from your repeated failure to answer ... your incoherent “argument” ... a transparent evasion tactic ... None of your squirming ... you have utterly failed ... admit that you lack the intellectual integrity ... Any other response is dishonest.

Onlooker, Can you substantiate your claims? Can you articulate the ambiguity you insist is there? If not, then why not? :) Upright BiPed

onlooker, your continued presence here doesn't mean you've addressed even a single aspect of the argument in the OP. Until you do so it stands as unrefuted. Heck, it still stands as unaddressed. onlooker:

D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

Define "connected by a direct physical mechanism." Are the bases in a strand of DNA connected by a direct physical mechanism? Are the amino acids in a protein connected by a direct physical mechanism? Does it follow that their ordering is non-arbitray?

If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

It lacks any connection to reality. It's arbitrary. Troll Mung

Onlooker at 905, Keith’s reformulation of my argument added extraneous issues to the argument which do exist in the original. This fact was explained immediately after he presented his reformulation. He promptly ignored that correction. He, like you, is desperate to revamp the argument because he cannot refute it. Upright BiPed

Onlooker at 904,

As already discussed, your attempt to distract from your repeated failure to answer direct questions about your incoherent “argument” by asking me questions is a transparent evasion tactic. Here’s the meat of my response, from my comment 864:

Firstly, the questions I asked you were intended to get you to engage in the answers to your questions, But you have no interest so. Secondly, the “meat” of your response is (once again) all about redefining the definition of “materially arbitrary” in terms of a mechanism. As already stated, the mechanism of the system’s origin does not change the material relationship between the representation and the effect. That relationship is materially arbitrary (and indeed must be so) regardless of whatever mechanism established it. This is not only a universal observation regarding information transfer, but is also a logical necessity. You cannot refute it. Upright BiPed

Onlooker in 903

UB: I have defined them. But you keep asking me to redefine them in terms of the mechanism which might establish the relationship. Onlooker: No, I am asking you to define them clearly and I have asked very direct and straightforward questions about your definition that you have consistently avoided answering. Here they are again: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

Firstly, you say want me to clearly define my use of the term “arbitrary”, but time and time again you've been asked to articulate any ambiguity in the definition already given. You have failed to do so. Secondly, I have said that you keep trying to get me to restate the definition in terms of the mechanism of its origin. You reply “no” you are not doing so, then in the space of a single sentence, you turn around and ask me again about the mechanism of its origin. It’s dishonest lunacy. Bottom line: You simply cannot articulate an ambiguity in the definition given. Your claim is false. Upright BiPed

Upright Biped's argument supports ID because it meets the design criteria, part of which is the total failure of necessity and chance to account for transcription and translation. And I am 100% positive that is what has the evos frothing at the mouth- the total inability of their position to explain what we observe. Joe

That onlooker references keiths, of all people, says it is totally clueless... Joe

After over 900 comments it seems appropriate to repost this from keiths at The Skeptical Zone:

Every time I summarized your argument, I a) asked you whether my summary was accurate, and b) invited you to amend my summary if it was not. You refused each time, even when others (who also found your prose impenetrable) repeatedly asked you to do so. Why is that? If your argument is as strong as you claim, why do you work so hard to prevent your audience from understanding it? When I have a good idea, I actually want other people to understand it. When they ask questions, I answer them. If I see that they misunderstand me, I clarify things. Why wouldn’t I? Why would I try to hide my good idea? You, on the other hand, seem ashamed of your argument and afraid of what might happen if you stated it clearly and explicitly. Instead of clarifying, you obfuscate. Instead of answering questions straightforwardly, you evade them. You complain that others are misrepresenting your position, but when they ask you for correction, you refuse to give it. Then you declare victory, saying that no one has defeated your argument! For you, the entire exercise seems to be more about saving face than it is about communicating your ideas. In fact, you appear to be deliberately avoiding communication precisely in order to save face. Why should anyone take your argument seriously if you are so ashamed of it? Why are you afraid to communicate it in a way that your audience will actually understand?

Either answer the outstanding questions I've raised here and those you ran away from at TSZ or simply admit that you lack the intellectual integrity to do so and drop any claims to have an argument supporting ID. Any other response is dishonest. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Your 873 appears to be an attempt to take this discussion into an infinite loop. I responded to all of that in 864 …

You did? Let’s take a look, shall we? Where is your answer to this question:

UB: Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid?

I do not see your answer anywhere. Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid, or not?

As already discussed, your attempt to distract from your repeated failure to answer direct questions about your incoherent "argument" by asking me questions is a transparent evasion tactic. Here's the meat of my response, from my comment 864:

Now if all of that is true (and it is), then it is a perfectly valid empirical statement to say that the “relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)”.

Note the bolding in the previous quoted passage and in this one. See the difference? You switch from “inexorable law” to “physical law”, which probably explains why you’ve avoided directly answering this question I’ve posed repeatedly: Does “law” mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? As near as I can tell, you’re claiming that because there are other conceivable relationships between nucleotide triplets and amino acids that could have existed, the one that does exist is not “reducible to physical law”. That, combined with your repeated use of the word “inexorable”, suggests that you do not consider stochastic mechanisms to be covered by the word “law”. All that’s fine — your argument, your definitions. However, your words don’t change reality. In fact, every process in the transcription and translation cascade can be described without invoking any violations of chemistry or physics. If you are suggesting that the relationship we observe could not have arisen without some violation of chemistry and physics, you’ve got a lot more work to do to support such an assertion. In addition to all the other questions you’ve avoided answering, we’re back to one you ran away from at The Skeptical Zone: How does your argument, assuming you ever make it coherent, support ID?

None of your squirming gets around the clear fact that you have utterly failed to address any of these issues. Your "argument" doesn't exist. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

I am asking you to define your terms.

And I have defined them. But you keep asking me to redefine them in terms of the mechanism which might establish the relationship.

No, I am asking you to define them clearly and I have asked very direct and straightforward questions about your definition that you have consistently avoided answering. Here they are again: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? onlooker

As Upright BiPed has aptly pointed out, to get from pond scum to us requires recorded information. Information recorded in a material system. Darwinists have no theory The best they can do is pretend to not comprehend the facts, while at the same time offering no alternative. And then they appear to be befuddled by our failure to be convinced by their lack of response, blaming us, rather than themselves. Mung

Just as, after well past a month, no 6,000 word essay on the warrant for the blind watchmaker thesis, from pond salts and scum to us. KF kairosfocus

You're implying that onlooker knows how to use Google or some other search engine and actually has some desire to learn what arbitrary means. I think onlooker knows full well what the word means, so feels no need to explore the matter further. onlooker's actions here at UD are pure posturing. 900 posts and still no rebuttal. Mung

A quick search on Google Scholar for the incomprehensible term “arbitrary”. I received 2,370,000 responses. Here are some examples:

…additive constant in U is not physically arbitrary since both… …evolution equation under arbitrary macrodeformation is derived… …contain in vacuum four physically arbitrary functions moving… ...then extends the proof to arbitrary states of this system… …VMS are materially arbitrary with respect to their referents… …this method of comparing intensities is physically arbitrary, since… …phase p(t) of an arbitrary ultrashort pulse with no physical… …subjecting them to four arbitrary conditions, proceeds to find... …displacement implies an arbitrary shape determined by the… …scattering by boundaries of arbitrary shape, size, and orientation… …mechanical response along arbitrary deformation paths… …generators with arbitrary expansion can be constructed… …pore bodies in real porous media must remain arbitrary… …concurrence for an arbitrary pure state of two qubits… …protons incident on a target of arbitrary ionization level… …particles of arbitrary spin in an electromagnetic field…

Quite obviously, the world of science is in complete disarray. What could all of these people be talking about, using this entirely unusable English word “arbitrary”. Right? Upright BiPed

onlooker believes that to pretend to not understand the argument is to have refuted it. Mung

UB from #826 on October 8th

Onlooker, You are now left with nothing but to return here and use the repetition of your attempts as an opportunity to sling more insults. It’s all you have left. As I have already pointed out, it’s a terrible way to have to protect your worldview.

Onlooker from earlier today, November 1st:

...evasion is your only option...someone terrified of risking being proven wrong...refusing to engage in good faith and hoping that your ridiculous responses...you’d prefer to simply run away...looking like a cowardly fool...You are demonstrating intellectual dishonesty coupled with a complete lack of integrity. There is no honor in your actions...

Are you ready to lay out your long-since-promised refutation of the argument yet? Upright BiPed

Yes, Upright BiPed, you are obviously trying to create an endless loop. Mung

Based on the definitions of arbitrary offered in 889, everyone can see that onlooker is acting in an arbitrary manner. Joe

methinks onlooker is on a crusade to get banned from UD. That's the only explanation I can come up with for the observed behavior. There's certainly no indication of any true interest in debate or moving things forward. Mung

Onlooker at 886,

Your 873 appears to be an attempt to take this discussion into an infinite loop. I responded to all of that in 864 …

You did? Let’s take a look, shall we? Where is your answer to this question:

UB: Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid?

I do not see your answer anywhere. Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid, or not? So where is your answer to this question:

UB: Does it require something else (other than the nucleic triplet and the amino acid) to make the material connection between the two?

I do not see your answer to this question. Does the relationship require something more than the nucleic triplet and amino acid, or not? So where is your answer to this question:

UB: If so, then is this material connection a matter of an inexorable law (existing between the triplet and the amino acid) or is it established by this something else (i.e. the aaRS) which operates within the system?

I do not see where you addressed this question. So is the relationship between the nucleic triplet and the amino acid established by an inexorable law between them, or is it established by the aaRS operating within the system? So where is your answer to this question:

UB: If it is true that the material connection is established locally by the aaRS, and not globally by an inexorable law (between the triplet and the amino acid) then isn’t the relationship between the two “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law?”

Frankly, I don’t see that you answered this question at all. Is the relationship established locally by the aaRS or globally by an inexorable law? Is the relationship “context specific” within the system, and “not a matter of an inexorable law” between the triplet and the amino acid, or not? So where is your answer to this question:

UB: If it is then true that the relationship between the two is “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law”, is it also true that no physical laws are broken in establishing this relationship?

And here once again, I see no answer at all. So where are all these answers that you claim to have given? Where is your attempt in trying to understand? Why did you explicitly ignore any and all examples used to illustrate the terms? Why do you continually ask questions, and then refuse to engage in the answers? Here is what I think; I think hell will freeze over before you’ll engage in these questions. I am certain of it. Upright BiPed

Onlooker at 887,

I am asking you to define your terms.

And I have defined them. But you keep asking me to redefine them in terms of the mechanism which might establish the relationship. In response, I have repeatedly told you that the quality of the relationship between the two objects in question exist as it does regardless of the mechanism which establishes that relationship. SPecifically, I stated:

The issue of the representation being materially arbitrary to its effect does not address any proposed mechanism which may establish that relationship within a system. It does not address (in one way or another) whether a potential mechanism is purely law-based, or contains stochastic or other non-deterministic elements, or otherwise – it simply acknowledges that the relationship between the representation and its effect is not a matter of inexorable law. You cannot derive one from the other (without the system).

Moreover, it is the mechanism that is in question, so to place an answer to that question within the observations themselves is tantamount to assuming your conclusion, and is therefore a completely avoidable logical fallacy. You have thus far refused to acknowledge these very simple observations. Upright BiPed

Onlooker at 885,

I’ll spell it out for you. Your use of the term “materially arbitrary” is no different than if you invented the word “splangilous” and used that to denote whatever concept it is that you’re trying so unsuccessfully to communicate. If you want to use that word, fine. If you want to claim that some object or pattern is splangilous, fine.

You are entirely correct.

That doesn’t provide allow any outside observer to determine what you mean by it.

Unless they ask. And if they did, I would tell them that the relationship (in question) within the system is “spangilous”, and spangilous means that it is “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law”, at which point they would know that the relationship between a) the representation, and b) the effect it evokes within the system, is “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law”. That’s what happened 70 days and a mere 878 comments ago. Upright BiPed

onlooker is such a misnomer. Mung

Hey- look what I found!: arbitrary:

1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law [the manner of punishment is arbitrary] 2 a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority [an arbitrary government] b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power [protection from arbitrary arrest and detention] 3 a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something [an arbitrary standard] [take any arbitrary positive number] [arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee] b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will [when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary— Nehemiah Jordan]

Anyone with at least a first grade education should be able to take those definitions, plug them into the sentence, and figure out which definition to use. So either evos are totally ignorant or just dishonest jerks. Joe

onlooker, The only people who say UB has NOT made an argument that supports ID are the ignorant evoTARDs over on TSZ and yourself, a proven liar and loser. Objective onlookers understand that... Joe

Upright BiPed,

Why do you repeatedlty ask about the nature of the mechanism… given that you’ve been told a number of times that the observations do not address the nature of the mechanism.

I am asking you to define your terms. The fact that you refuse to do so shows that you have no confidence in your argument. Why, then, should anyone else take it seriously? onlooker

Upright BiPed, Your 873 appears to be an attempt to take this discussion into an infinite loop. I responded to all of that in 864 and asked a number of questions to try to clarify your meaning, all of which you've ignored. You are repeating the behavior you exhibited when Elizabeth Liddle was posting here -- refusing to engage in good faith and hoping that your ridiculous responses would lead to her becoming frustrated and leaving so that you could claim some kind of victory. No doubt you'd prefer to simply run away from the questions as you did at The Skeptical Zone, but this seems to be your home territory so evasion is your only option. You are demonstrating intellectual dishonesty coupled with a complete lack of integrity. There is no honor in your actions. If you have any confidence at all in the word salad you call an argument, you answer these questions directly. If, instead, you would rather be seen to be more fearful of being proven wrong than of looking like a cowardly fool, continue as you have. The one thing you cannot do is honestly claim that you have an argument that supports ID. The only people who would agree with that are a couple of your less intellectually gifted sycophants here. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

So when you wrote "Well, if that’s how you’re defining "materially arbitrary" for the purposes of your argument, then sure, it’s "materially arbitrary" you were not indicating you understood how I was using the term "materially arbitrary" in my argument?

Clearly any subtlety is lost on you. I'll spell it out for you. Your use of the term "materially arbitrary" is no different than if you invented the word "splangilous" and used that to denote whatever concept it is that you're trying so unsuccessfully to communicate. If you want to use that word, fine. If you want to claim that some object or pattern is splangilous, fine. That doesn't provide allow any outside observer to determine what you mean by it. That's why I continued as follows in the part of my reply you continually refuse to address: I have the same question as before about your definition. Consider this rephrasing: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? It's high time you answer these direct, simple questions rather than rhetorically squirming like someone terrified of risking being proven wrong. onlooker

...and thanks to "JDNA4L" as well. Upright BiPed

Eric at 877, Hi Eric, I think that the brevity of the description of information is a quality truly imposed by its material reality. There are a certain (large) number of material configurations in the cosmos, yet only an exceedlingly small fraction of those carry a semantic quality. In my way of thinking, the complexity typically associated with describing information only (really) has to do with our attempts to quantify it - yet our attempts to identify it should remain rather simple. This is why opponents always make a hard run for the mathematical tall grass. Its safe ground not because of its precision, but because of its comparative ambiguity. Upright BiPed

It‘s as if the argument doesn't exist, only tiny disconnected bits of it exist. Self-blindness. Mung

What is really laughable, to me, is that if Upright BiPed was talking about computers and information transfer over the internet, I bet there would be no objection. But apply tie same principles to living things and, oh no! Now we don't know the meaning of arbitrary. Or whether a stochastic process can be inexorable. Or any number of other excuses for feigned ignorance. People like onlooker don't even address the argument. They take tiny pieces of it and argue over them so they won't have to think about the entirety of the argument. It 's as if the argument does exist, only tiny disconnected bits of it exist. Self-blindness. Mung

Wow. I send many many thanks for the encouraging thoughts. Thank you Mung. Thank you Stephen. Thank you Eric. Upright BiPed

Eric Anderson @877. Yes, indeed. You have absorbed and improved on my point. It's almost as if the Darwinists had rationalized their attack on UB's formulation by saying, "Well, I may have failed a preliminary test in basic arithmetic, but that fact alone does not disqualify me from challenging the principles of integral calculus." StephenB

Mung @876: Oh yes, definitely. UB's point is far more subtle and multi-dimensional than mine, and your description of his formulation is apt: He integrates the science with pure logic----and does it successfully. All those If/then's are carefully, delicately, and consciously constructed to serve a specific purpose. His finished product is irreducibly complex. StephenB

StephenB @875: Unfortunately, I think your experience is not unusual. You have a good point. It occurs to me that at some level of debate we don't need a highly technical definition of "information" (not because we don't want to do our best to pin down definitions at the appropriate time; just because it isn't necessary to make the point about how information arises, is transferred, etc.). At an initial stage, we could just stipulate that the "information" stuff we are talking about is the kind of information contained in DNA, as one example. After all, as it relates to origins, that is the information that objectively exists and must be explained. Biology textbooks are replete with references to this information; indeed there is a whole scientific discipline that has arisen in the wake of the discovery of information in life: bioinformatics. Therefore, it is possible to discuss nearly everything we need to discuss just by general reference to information of the type found in DNA. No need to get bogged down with some hyper-technical discussion about what does and does not constitute information. Anyway, just a thought. Actually getting a committed materialist to be willing to have a reasoned discussion on even that neutral approach, however, may be a separate challenge . . . If even with that kind of general and neutral approach to the concept someone is unwilling to acknowledge that there is "information" in DNA, then it is a pretty good bet that any further discussion (e.g., about what information is, how it arises, how it is transmitted, etc.) will be fruitless. Eric Anderson

I love the gist of Upright BiPed's argument though. He's talking about material facts. And logic. If you are going to transfer information in a material system certain things must be true. Darwinism presupposes that system and therefore cannot explain it. The Darwinists have no answer. None. Mung

Upright Biped @873: The quizzical responses to your beautifully explicit argument for information reminds me of some of my more general discussions with Darwinists. ID proponent: “Only an intelligent agent could produce the information present in a DNA molecule.” Darwinist: “Naturalistic forces can produce information just as well as an intelligent agent. ID Proponent: “Only intelligent agents have ever been known to produce information.” Darwiniist: “Information???, Whazzzaaattt???” Give me a more precise definition. ID proponent: Just use the same definition that informed your earlier claim. You’ve got to love it. StephenB

Onlooker, Why do you repeatedlty ask about the nature of the mechanism... given that you've been told a number of times that the observations do not address the nature of the mechanism. You've even been told why they do not address the mechanism. Can you provide a rational explanation for this demonstrated obstinance? Upright BiPed

Onlooker, Perhaps, as a part of your (obviously) very genuine desire to resolve the issue, you could return to the previous post you were responding to, and finally describe this supposed ambiguity you keep insisting exist? I'll be happy to re-post the text here for your convenience:

Now ask yourself some questions: Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid? If they do not materially interact, then how do you get from one to the other? Does it require something else (other than the nucleic triplet and the amino acid) to make the material connection between the two? If so, then is this material connection a matter of an inexorable law (existing between the triplet and the amino acid) or is it established by this something else (i.e. the aaRS) which operates within the system? If it is true that the material connection is established locally by the aaRS, and not globally by an inexorable law (between the triplet and the amino acid) then isn’t the relationship between the two “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law?” If it is then true that the relationship between the two is “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law”, is it also true that no physical laws are broken in establishing this relationship? If it is then true that the relationship is “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law” (while at the same time no laws are broken by the operation of system) then is this not an example of a “materially arbitrary” relationship which has been instantiated into a physical system? - – - – - – - – - Now if all of that is true (and it is), then it is a perfectly valid empirical statement to say that the “relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)”.

Upright BiPed

Onlooker, So when you wrote "Well, if that’s how you’re defining “materially arbitrary” for the purposes of your argument, then sure, it’s “materially arbitrary” you were not indicating you understood how I was using the term "materially arbitrary" in my argument? How odd. In any case, I gather from your retreat in #871, you are still unable to share the big refutation you keep promising. How surprising. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed, Sorry for the delay in replying. I hooked up with this stormy wench named Sandy and she battered me for a couple of days and left me powerless for a couple more before blowing on out of my life.

Well, if that’s how you’re defining "materially arbitrary" for the purposes of your argument, then sure, it’s "materially arbitrary" by your definition.

Great. You now understand what is meant by "materially arbitrary".

Oh dear. I gave you credit for enough intelligence to be able to detect sarcasm. My apologies, I won't make that mistake again. I also gave you credit for enough honesty not to quote mine what I wrote, particularly when it's so easy to see that you did so. Another mistake I shan't repeat. Here's what you ignored, with such lack of integrity: Given all that, I have the same question as before about your definition. Consider this rephrasing: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? I've asked these questions repeatedly. It would progress the discussion if you would answer them. How about an answer this time instead of continuing to demonstrate your fear of being proven wrong by avoiding simple, direct questions? onlooker

Mung, onlooker will believe and say any and all things required to protect her worldview. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed, I'd bet that onlooker believes the current genetic code evolved from a simpler code while at the same time maintaining she doesn't know what you mean by 'arbitrary.' Mung

onlooker:

That, combined with your repeated use of the word “inexorable”, suggests that you do not consider stochastic mechanisms to be covered by the word “law”.

Could you give us an example of a stochastic physical law that is not inexorable? Mung

Well, if that’s how you’re defining “materially arbitrary” for the purposes of your argument, then sure, it’s “materially arbitrary” by your definition.

haha. hahaha. hahahahahha. So now, understanding the meaning of arbitrary, and having a glimpse of what that means, onlooker goes back to asking what you mean by arbitrary. troll

D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

FAIL!

Is that how you use the word in your argument?

No.

If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

First, that's not a definition. Second, it lacks the essential characteristics of the word being defined.

I’ve asked these questions repeatedly.

That right. you're great at repeating things without actually trying to understand. kudos to you.

It would progress the discussion if you would answer them.

And it might progress the discussion if you weren't a troll. But you are, so ... Mung

onlooker:

In fact, every process in the transcription and translation cascade can be described without invoking any violations of chemistry or physics.

And every process inside of a computer can be described without invoking any violations of chemistry or physics. Does that mean computers are reducible to chemistry or physics? No. Every process inside my car's engine can be desicribed without invoking any violations of chemistry or physics. Does that mean my car's engine is reducible to chemistry and physics? No. Is onlooker really as stupid as it makes itself out to be? Most likely... Joe

Well, if that’s how you’re defining “materially arbitrary” for the purposes of your argument, then sure, it’s “materially arbitrary” by your definition.

Great. You now understand what is meant by "materially arbitrary". And just think, it only took you 54 days to grasp what a child could understand in mere minutes. So are you now prepared to demonstrate how the premises are untrue, or that the conclusion does not follow from them? As for your questions regarding a mechanism, I have already answered that back on October 4th. The fact that the relationship between the representation and its effect is materially arbitrary does not address any mechanism proposed to have established that relationship. The observation of the relationship stands on its own. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid? If they do not materially interact, then how do you get from one to the other? Does it require something else (other than the nucleic triplet and the amino acid) to make the material connection between the two? If so, then is this material connection a matter of an inexorable law (existing between the triplet and the amino acid) or is it established by this something else (i.e. the aaRS) which operates within the system? If it is true that the material connection is established locally by the aaRS, and not globally by an inexorable law (between the triplet and the amino acid) then isn’t the relationship between the two "context specific" and "not a matter of inexorable law?" If it is then true that the relationship between the two is "context specific" and "not a matter of inexorable law", is it also true that no physical laws are broken in establishing this relationship? If it is then true that the relationship is "context specific" and "not a matter of inexorable law" (while at the same time no laws are broken by the operation of system) then is this not an example of a "materially arbitrary" relationship which has been instantiated into a physical system?

(Bolding mine, to be discussed shortly.) Well, if that's how you're defining "materially arbitrary" for the purposes of your argument, then sure, it's "materially arbitrary" by your definition. Given all that, I have the same question as before about your definition. Consider this rephrasing: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? I've asked these questions repeatedly. It would progress the discussion if you would answer them.

Now if all of that is true (and it is), then it is a perfectly valid empirical statement to say that the "relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)".

Note the bolding in the previous quoted passage and in this one. See the difference? You switch from "inexorable law" to "physical law", which probably explains why you've avoided directly answering this question I've posed repeatedly: Does "law" mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? As near as I can tell, you're claiming that because there are other conceivable relationships between nucleotide triplets and amino acids that could have existed, the one that does exist is not "reducible to physical law". That, combined with your repeated use of the word "inexorable", suggests that you do not consider stochastic mechanisms to be covered by the word "law". All that's fine -- your argument, your definitions. However, your words don't change reality. In fact, every process in the transcription and translation cascade can be described without invoking any violations of chemistry or physics. If you are suggesting that the relationship we observe could not have arisen without some violation of chemistry and physics, you've got a lot more work to do to support such an assertion. In addition to all the other questions you've avoided answering, we're back to one you ran away from at The Skeptical Zone: How does your argument, assuming you ever make it coherent, support ID? onlooker

Onlooker, It’s good that you picked the following passage to try and make your point:

Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

Allow me to draw your attention to two specific sentences: "which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS." Now ask yourself some questions: Does the nucleic triplet materially interact with the amino acid? If they do not materially interact, then how do you get from one to the other? Does it require something else (other than the nucleic triplet and the amino acid) to make the material connection between the two? If so, then is this material connection a matter of an inexorable law (existing between the triplet and the amino acid) or is it established by this something else (i.e. the aaRS) which operates within the system? If it is true that the material connection is established locally by the aaRS, and not globally by an inexorable law (between the triplet and the amino acid) then isn't the relationship between the two “context specific” and “not a matter of inexorable law?” If it is then true that the relationship between the two is "context specific" and "not a matter of inexorable law", is it also true that no physical laws are broken in establishing this relationship? If it is then true that the relationship is "context specific" and "not a matter of inexorable law" (while at the same time no laws are broken by the operation of system) then is this not an example of a “materially arbitrary" relationship which has been instantiated into a physical system? - - - - - - - - - Now if all of that is true (and it is), then it is a perfectly valid empirical statement to say that the “relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)”. Upright BiPed

onlooker- Please tell us about this physical law that determines which codon encodes for which amino acid. Or stuff it because you are only exposing your ignorance. But that doesn't matter to an anonymous, insipid troll... Joe

Upright BiPed,

In any case, my usage of the term “physical law” does not differ from any definition found in a standard reference text.

Okay, let's go back to your original statement then:

The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)".

This conflicts with what you write in the paragraph numbered 9:

Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

You seem to want to claim that some part of the transcription process is "arbitrary" by your yet to be clarified definition. However, you note that binding is dependent on "physical structures". How is that not "reducible to physical law" by your definition? And if it is "reducible to physical law" it can't be "arbitrary" as you use the word. I'd rather not skip ahead before understanding the rest of your argument, but your obviously fear-based reluctance to actually define your terms and articulate your premises clearly requires that I do so if any progress is to be made in this discussion. onlooker

lol. the return of 'onlooker' I think we need a new name for this obvious troll. Now it doesn't know what is mean by a physical law and thinks that every thing that occurs must be caused by some physical law or other and therefore can be reduced to a physical law, all while arguing it doesn't know what a physical law is. So here's what I recommend. It can help to define what a term means in terms of what it does not means. So allow onlooker to pose questions to which you will give a yes or no answer, and nothing more. Here, let me hlep: Do you, by the term physical law, mean anything that could possibly cause a physical effect? Example: The effect of the specific character sequence in onlookers post. Caused by physical law? Mung

Good grief. Now you don’t know what a physical law is?

I’m trying to understand how you are using the term in your argument. From what you’ve written thus far, I don’t know what you mean.

I think the argument in the OP is better suited to those people who have previously comprehended what a "physical law" is. I believe people generally understand that the invisible forces of gravity caused Newton's apple to fall to the ground, and that electromagnetic forces lift a paper clip to a magnet held above it. Others understand that the negatively charged electrons of one atom may attract the positively charged protons of another, forming the basis of a chemical bond. In any case, my usage of the term "physical law" does not differ from any definition found in a standard reference text. Given that fact, you will need to articulate what you do not understand. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Good grief. Now you don’t know what a physical law is?

I'm trying to understand how you are using the term in your argument. From what you've written thus far, I don't know what you mean. I certainly don't know what could possibly cause a physical effect without being a "physical law". Please provide a definition of what you mean by that term in your argument.

And if you only knew what people meant when they used terms like “physical law” you could then articulate the long promised refutation of the argument in the OP? Is that the case?

Oh, we're nowhere near that point yet. Due to your continued reluctance to actually explain what you're trying to say, you've still got nothing but word salad. Perhaps we'll get to the point of an actual argument when you decide to define your terms and clarify your claims as I've repeatedly asked. onlooker

what do you mean by “physical law”?

Good grief. Now you don't know what a physical law is? And if you only knew what people meant when they used terms like "physical law" you could then articulate the long promised refutation of the argument in the OP? Is that the case? Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed, Real life work has been interfering with my online time. My apologies for the delay.

Onlooker:… I have two questions. First, does "law" mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? UB: You ask about a mechanism. The issue of the representation being materially arbitrary to its effect does not address any proposed mechanism which may establish that relationship within a system. It does not address (in one way or another) whether a potential mechanism is purely law-based, or contains stochastic or other non-deterministic elements, or otherwise – it simply acknowledges that the relationship between the representation and its effect is not a matter of inexorable law. You cannot derive one from the other (without the system).

That's a lot of words to avoid answering a simple yes or no question. To refresh your memory, you made the statement:

The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)".

What, exactly, do you mean by "not reducible to physical law"? More specifically, what do you mean by "physical law"? This seems to be at the heart of some of your claims, so it's important to understand it in order to understand your larger argument. Can you give an example of something outside of biology that is "not reducible to physical law"? You have also failed to respond to my questions about your definition of the word "arbitrary". Consider this definition: D3. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? If you are genuinely interested in making your argument intelligible, you will answer these questions directly. onlooker

Defn 31: arbitrary - not not arbitrary Mung

onlooker, were the words you've decided to argue over chosen arbitrarily? You've got your hollow victory. Why are you back? Mung

Onlooker, When you are able to articulate an ambiguity in the definition given for the term "materially arbitrary": "The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)" I will be happy to address it. Upright BiPed

Onlooker,

D3?. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? Also, what do you mean by “reducible to physical law”? Is a stochastic process a “physical law”?

You brought this new round of questions up on Oct 4th. Your question was immediately addressed within two hours on Oct 4th. You then completely ignored that repsonse on the 6th, and then again on the 10th, and then again on the 12th. So I repeated the repsonse on the 12th, which you subsequently ignored on the 16th, and yet again today, the 19th. I will repeat my response now, in the hope that you wil stop ignoring it.

October 4th Onlooker:… I have two questions. First, does “law” mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? UB: You ask about a mechanism. The issue of the representation being materially arbitrary to its effect does not address any proposed mechanism which may establish that relationship within a system. It does not address (in one way or another) whether a potential mechanism is purely law-based, or contains stochastic or other non-deterministic elements, or otherwise – it simply acknowledges that the relationship between the representation and its effect is not a matter of inexorable law. You cannot derive one from the other (without the system).

Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

You have yet to provide a precise definition of “arbitrary” sufficient to allow one to parse your statement

That is your assertion, which has long since grown stale. The fact remains, you have been given an unambiguous definition: "The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)".

You are still failing to answer the questions I asked, repeatedly, in response to that definition. In order to verify my understanding, I have attempted to rephrase your definition to reflect what I think you might mean: D3'. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? Also, what do you mean by "reducible to physical law"? Is a stochastic process a "physical law"? Let's get these out of the way, and then perhaps I'll be able to parse your prose. onlooker

850 and still waiting... Mung

no intelligent life was harmed during the making of this thread Mung

No laws of physics are violated in the programming of configurable switches. Yet the effects of the particular functional settings of these configurable switches cannot be reduced to laws and constraints. - David L. Able Mung

Formalisms are governed by arbitrarily written rules, not by inescapable physicodynamic laws. The word "arbitrary" is often confused with "random." In a cybernetic context, arbitrary refers to choice contingency in the sense that no selection is constrained by cause-and-effect determinism. Neither is it forced by external formal controls. The choice at any decision node is uncoerced by necessity. But it is not just contingent (could occur in multiple ways despite the orderliness described by the laws of physics). David L. Abel Mung

onlooker:

Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

FAIL onlooker:

Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations.

FAIL Mung

indeed 845 and counting ... Mung

Mung, When Onlooker refused to enage in any examples of the word "arbitrary" (like the one you gave, or the ones I had given earlier in the conversation) he demonstrated that his position simply cannot afford to do so. For him to enter into an genuine discussion of examples and illustrations would quickly corner him into revealing that he already knows what the word "arbitrary" means. He must remain silent on the issue. And if you'll look back across the conversation, you'll see that he never actually engages in any descriptive contexts of the word for this very specific reason. Instead, he attempts to shuffle the words around, and offer alternatives, without ever stating in any meaningful way whatsoever "why" new words and alternatives are needed in the first place. Its all tactical, and not the least bit substantive. Of course, the ultimate reason for all of this gamesmanship is that he can think of no way whatsoever to refute the argument given at the top of the page. It is the evidence itself that beats him. He must therefore remain silent on the actual issues, while he slings insults under the pretense of trying to understand. As I said earlier, its a sorry-assed way to have to support your worldview. Better him than me. Upright BiPed

Configurable switches represent decision nodes and logic gates. They are set according to arbitrary rules, not laws. Here arbitrary does not mean random. Arbitrary means "not physicodynamically determined, but freely chosen." Arbitrary means "freely selectable" - choice contingent. - David L. Abel onlooker:

Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism.

FAIL onlooker:

Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration.

FAIL onlooker:

Arbitrary: Not reducible to law in any context.

FAIL What a freaking moron. Mung

Consider a bank of light switches. Pushing a switch to the up position turns on a set of lights. Pushing it to the down position turns off the same set of lights. Pushing a different switch to the up position turns on a different set of lights. That pushing the light switch up should turn on the light rather than having the lights come on when pushing it down is arbitrary. Which lights are controlled by which switch is arbitrary. The fact that onlooker cannot incorporate these concepts into a simple definition of arbitrary displays a certain lack of mental acuity. onlooker:

Unless and until you do answer those questions, any claim that your argument supports ID, or makes any sense at all, would be both incorrect and dishonest.

From the fact that you're ignorant and dishonest it does not follow that everyone else is too. Enjoy your rhetorical 'victory.' You don't get to claim it for everyone. It belongs to you and you alone. Mung

Onlooker,

You have yet to provide a precise definition of “arbitrary” sufficient to allow one to parse your statement

That is your assertion, which has long since grown stale. The fact remains, you have been given an unambiguous definition: "The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system)". If you are unable to present an example of ambiguity in that definition, then your complaint has no merit. The ball is in your court. Can you substantiate your assertion? Upright BiPed

onlooker:

Unless and until you do answer those questions, any claim that your argument supports ID, or makes any sense at all, would be both incorrect and dishonest.

Upright BiPed's argument both makes sense and the observations support ID, and your objections to it are completely arbitrary. Mung

Joe (838):

Any and all claims you make are totally meaningless and amount to your pissing in the wind, as it were.

Upwind or downwind? Jerad

onlooker, Any and all claims you make are totally meaningless and amount to your pissing in the wind, as it were. Thankfully all objective onlookers see that. Joe

Upright BiPed,

Your battery of questions have been answered over and over again

No, they haven't. You have yet to provide a precise definition of "arbitrary" sufficient to allow one to parse your statement that

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

This appears to be essential to your argument, yet you repeatedly refuse to even attempt to clarify it. I suspect that the reason for this is that you fear that clarity will make the flaws in your argument obvious. It's evidently much better, from your point of view, to be incoherent than to risk being proven wrong. I'll keep monitoring this thread in the hopes that you'll develop some intellectual integrity and actually answer the questions I've posed. I won't be holding my breath, though. Unless and until you do answer those questions, any claim that your argument supports ID, or makes any sense at all, would be both incorrect and dishonest. onlooker

836 posts and waiting ... Mung

Onlooker,

If you are interested in people understanding and being able to discuss your argument, you would answer the questions I asked: D3?. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism.

Your battery of questions have been answered over and over again, yet you keep repeating them as if they haven’t. It is no mystery as to why you keep doing so. There is a materially arbitrary relationship between the representation and its resulting effect within a semiotic system. This arbitrary relationship is indeed the very thing that allows the system to operate in the first place. The system cannot logically transfer information without it, and in fact, no instance of information transfer has ever been observed otherwise. Faced with this empirical and logical reality, you desperately want to obfuscate this arbitrary aspect of the system. You have now spent weeks and weeks trying to change the definitions in way which would help you to either assume your own conclusions, or provide you the opportunity to attack me for assuming mine. And when I resist altering my argument to allow this, you then quickly follow up with the absolutely ridiculous pretense that you can’t understand the argument otherwise. But the description of the system is intended only to establish the specific methods of its operation; it is not to be subverted in order to support presumptions.

October 4th Onlooker:… I have two questions. First, does “law” mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? UB: You ask about a mechanism. The issue of the representation being materially arbitrary to its effect does not address any proposed mechanism which may establish that relationship within a system. It does not address (in one way or another) whether a potential mechanism is purely law-based, or contains stochastic or other non-deterministic elements, or otherwise – it simply acknowledges that the relationship between the representation and its effect is not a matter of inexorable law. You cannot derive one from the other (without the system).

Upright BiPed

D3?. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism.

FAIL

Is that how you use the word in your argument?

NO.

If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

Any connection to reality.

Also, what do you mean by “reducible to physical law”? Is a stochastic process a “physical law”?

That depends on whether the stochastic process is reducible to physical law. Mung

People understand the argument. Only those with an anti-ID agenda don't. And no one cares what you can parse. Joe

Upright BiPed,

I have repeated the definitons because I believe them to provide an unambiguous description of the system. When you provide an example of the ambiguity, I will address it.

If you are interested in people understanding and being able to discuss your argument, you would answer the questions I asked: D3'. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? Also, what do you mean by "reducible to physical law"? Is a stochastic process a "physical law"? Let's get these out of the way, and then perhaps I'll be able to parse your prose. onlooker

I just can't imagine anything not reducible to deterministic physical laws! arbitrary - it's just another word to mask our ignorance about the underlying laws. Mung

#827, I have repeated the definitons because I believe them to provide an unambiguous description of the system. When you provide an example of the ambiguity, I will address it. Upright BiPed

D3. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration.

At least this attempt includes the concept of a context (the system under consideration.)

D3?. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism.

Fail.

Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

A context.

Also, what do you mean by “reducible to physical law”? Is a stochastic process a “physical law”?

2LoT? Mung

As I’ve stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim.

Perhaps YOU are the problem... Joe

Upright BiPed,

Materially arbitrary: The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system).

This is just repeating what you said before, without answering my questions (for at least the second time). You have still not explained what you mean by "context specific". As I asked before, is this a better formulation of your defintion: D3. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration. I'm still not sure what the last bit adds. Consider this version: D3'. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? Also, what do you mean by "reducible to physical law"? Is a stochastic process a "physical law"? I would also still like to get clarity on your second premise:

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

As I've stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim. I have been trying to get a precise definition of what you mean by "arbitrary" in order to be able to parse this, but you are remarkably resistent to providing that. I am therefore asking you to rephrase this, preferably in a clear and concise format, to make it clear what you are trying to say. onlooker

Onlooker, Your entire involvement here has been an attempt to massage over the unambiguous definitions given in the argument, in the hopes that you can make them malleable for a counter-argument. This has already been discussed here and here among other places. Unfortunately for you, your strategy has been transparent for the entire duration of your stay. You are now left with nothing but to return here and use the repetition of your attempts as an opportunity to sling more insults. It's all you have left. As I have already pointed out, it’s a terrible way to have to protect your worldview. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. Protocol: An arrangement of matter that physical established the otherwise non-existent relationship between a representation and its effect. Materially arbitrary: The relationship between the representation and its material effect is context specific; not reducible to physical law (regardless of any mechanism proposed as the origin of the system). Evoke: The representation can evoke an effect within a system, but because it is materially arbitrary to that effect, it cannot determine what that effect will be – the effect is physically determined by the protocol alone. - - - - - - - - - - - - - These two arrangements of matter are ubiquitous in any transfer of recorded information, and they must operate as described in order to accomplish what must be accomplished – the transfer of form via a material medium. These objects are both a logical necessity and a universal empirical observation. You cannot refute them, and your unending attempts to redefine them (with added ambiguity) have grown stale, even on your own side of the fence. Upright BiPed

A - The thing itself. B - The representation of the thing. By definition, B is not A. The representation of a thing is not the thing itself. C - the relationship between A and B. x - that which determines C, such that C cannot possibly be other than what it is, and there is no other alternative to C. Seriously, how hard was that? Comments UPB? Mung

onlooker:

As I’ve stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim.

And I say this is a flat out <lie. The fact that you so fastidiously avoid putting forth an adequate definition of 'arbitrary' shows you know exactly what the consequences would be if you did so, and puts the lie to your claim that you're simply clueless. No one who was not so deliberately, obtusely, and dishonestly 'clueless' could have avoided coming across an adequate definition of 'arbitrary' for as long as you've managed to. Mung

onlooker, does your intellectual dishonesty not disturb you in the slightest?

The answer, sadly, is no. Mung

Upright BiPed, Speaking of The Skeptical Zone, you've got outstanding questions over there still. onlooker

Upright BiPed, 820 comments in and we've only got two definitions and a premise: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences D2. Information: The form of a thing. P1. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. We also have a couple of open issues and related questions: - On the precise definition of "arbitrary" as you use it in your argument: Is this a better formulation of your defintion: D3'. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration. I’m still not sure what the last bit adds. Consider this version: D3''. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? - On your second premise

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

As I've stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim. I have been trying to get a precise definition of what you mean by "arbitrary" in order to be able to parse this, but you are remarkably resistent to providing that. I am therefore asking you to rephrase this, preferably in a clear and concise format, to make it clear what you are trying to say. When Lizzie was here attempting to understand your claims, you muddied the waters continuously until she gave up in frustration. At The Skeptical Zone, you made the error of being partially clear on a few points and ran away from the ensuing questions. Here you appear to be trying to combine both techniques. The bottom line is that you still have nothing but word salad and have clearly demonstrated your fear of providing clarity. It's time to man up and either make your argument understandable or admit that you've got nothing. What I expect instead is for you to continue to ignore or obfuscate and claim victory despite your clearly willful failure to explain or support your claims. Prove me wrong. onlooker

onlooker, does your intellectual dishonesty not disturb you in the slightest? Mung

D3?. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration.

Fail.

D3”. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism.

Fail.

Is that how you use the word in your argument?

No.

If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack?

Well, look at the words you use, look at the words Upright BiPed uses, and then plug into your "definitions" the missing words. Then consider the words you added, and the concept or concepts they convey, and that should answer your question. Assuming you're serious. My guess is you won't even attempt to do what I suggest. Mung

onlooker- No one cares about your "questions". And no one cares about you. Someday, maybe, you will have some evidence to share and then we will care. Until themn you are just a pimple on the arse of progress. Congratulations.... Joe

Upright BiPed,

That’s fine, let’s find one that you do accept and that I am able to understand well enough to repeat back to you.

I have said that the relationship between a representation and its effect within a system is context specific, and I further stated that the relationship is not reducible to inexorable law. It requires the system (i.e. a specific context) in order to establish the relationship. There is nothing about that definition which is ambiguous from a material standpoint.

You have completely ignored my questions. Here they are again: Is this a better formulation of your defintion: D3'. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration. I’m still not sure what the last bit adds. Consider this version: D3''. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? onlooker

Diogenes: So I won’t be back for a while, maybe a long while. And so UB's post will not be refuted after all, at least not by Diogene, unless Diogene decides to come back of course. I'm sure if Diogene was to put his/her mind to it, it would only be a matter of time really ;o) PeterJ

...ooops

Now I can ask myself “why must I describe the translation of nucleic triplets into amino acids [in terms of matrices and vectors] if the very men who elucidated the system for all others to see (and who won Nobel prizes for their discoveries) did not do so?” And I have an answer. It’s because your entire counter-argument is deliberate, wholesale obfuscation (i.e. bullshit) fostered for the express purpose of avoiding the argument given in the OP.

Upright BiPed

...the material arrangement has a quality which extends beyond it's mere materiality. (Hello “arbitrary”)

I just can't wait for onlooker's next attempt to redefine arbitrary in light of this statement. On pins and needles I am. Mung

Diogenes,

…but you won’t answer ... Why not? ... You won’t answer … It’s just a number and you won’t answer … I think you’re afraid to say it.

If I may break into your mudslinging fest for just a moment; I’ll try not to impose on you too much with the recorded facts of this conversation. You specifically asked me to clarify what I meant by “context specific”. In my very next post I gave you that clarification. You then ignored that clarification and started a whole new line of argument. Instead of just ignoring the questions you asked, I asked if you now understood my usage of the term. And now you’ve come back to claim – ridiculously – that I am afraid to answer your questions. You are a one man attack on integrity. Really. Every single instance of you questioning why I havn't answered you is an instance of pure intellectual dishonesty. Period. Since you seem to now not care about your earlier argument, I will now address your new round of argument. Diogenes: How many parts are in the system? Did you even read the OP? There is an irreducible core of two material objects; a representation and a protocol. So you may ask “Then why do you include the effect as well?” Simply because if you could not identify an unambiguous functional effect, then you could not identify a representation or protocol from any other arrangement of matter. As an example, imagine a lab researcher synthesizing by accident the ‘attack’ pheromone of an ant. Would he be able to identify it as a chemical signal without the system of the ant? Do you understand? That is the whole point; the material arrangement has a quality which extends beyond it mere materiality. (Hello “arbitrary”) It must be observed in a system in order to confirm that quality exists. Diogenes: Matrices? Vectors? Good grief. In my office files I have several papers which were published by the men who decoded the genetic code and identified the individual objects that instantiate that code into a physical system. These papers include peer-reviewed journal articles, as well as correspondence between various people. I think it is safe for me to answer you in this way: How many times does the word or mathematical concept “vector” appear in those documents? Zero. How many times does the word or mathematical concept “matrix” appear in those documents? Zero. Now I can ask myself “why must I describe the translation of nucleic triplets into amino acids if the very men who elucidated the system for all others to see (and who won Nobel prizes for their discoveries) did not do so?” And I have an answer. It’s because your entire counter-argument is deliberate, wholesale obfuscation (i.e. bullshit) fostered for the express purpose of avoiding the argument given in the OP. Upright BiPed

@ Mung DTU! This dude is one piece of work.. wateron1

So guys, do you think Diogenes has refuted UB’s argument?

I don't. :) Mung

But the reactions still produced ribose and you absolutely need ribose to make ribonucleotides, you moron. diarhea:

They never did you blithering toff.

According to the paper I provided, they did, you ignorant git. Ya see diarhea, in order to have a ribonucleotide, you HAVE to have ribose. So either theye did NOT synthesize a ribonucleotide as they said, OR YOU are a complete imbecile. diarhrea:

What Slow is saying is like: ribonucleotides have hydrogen in them; therefore, the reaction produced hydrogen!

Only an ignorant turd would say something like that, and here you are. Joe

I have a problem with a person who follows me from blog to blog, and who seems to monitor UD 24/7. So I won't be back for a while, maybe a long while. Diogenes

Diogenes:

I want mathematical definitions. Math is clarifying. Examples are not.

Diogenes:

Me: In the example I gave above, of air bubbles in ice cores recording the climate, that was Shannon’s mutual information, produced by natural processes.

I don't want stinking examples, I want MATHS! Mung

Diogenes:

Simple question! But you ask a creationist a simple question and he never, ever, gives a simple answer.

I have a theory about that. We're not creationists. Mung

Slow tells us:

But the reactions still produced ribose

They never did you blithering toff. You don't understand squat about chemistry. A ribose moiety is not a ribose. If a molecule has a moiety in it, that does not mean that the synthesis of the molecule "produced" the moiety. This is not what the word "produce" means in chemical synthesis! Moron. What Slow is saying is like: ribonucleotides have hydrogen in them; therefore, the reaction produced hydrogen! Or maybe: ribonucleotides have protons in them; therefore, the reaction produced protons! Or perhaps: ribonucleotides have quarks in them; therefore, the reaction produced quarks! Or perhaps: ribonucleotides have energy in them; therefore, the reaction produced energy! Ribonucleotides have a ribose moiety in them; therefore, the reaction produced ribose! What an idiot. Diogenes

Diogenes:

I asked you directly: how many parts are in your system?

Wouldn't that depend on the context? Mung

IS WIKIPEDIA LYING!? HUH? HUH? ARE THEY LYING!? I can't believe you responded to that. =P Mung

And you demanded that I clairify myself. You then ignored that clarification. Why is that?

I don't think it's a clarification. What implements or instantiates the "context"? The Cause, the Adaptor, or the Effect? It think it must be the Adaptor, but you won't answer. Why not? I asked you directly: how many parts are in your system? Are there other components besides Cause, Adaptor, Effect? You won't answer. It's not hard. It's a count. How many parts in your system? 2? 3? 4? It's just a number and you won't answer. And it is relevant, and that's why you have NOT clarified what you mean by "context." I want to know what part of the system instantiates this "context". To answer that, we need a count of parts in the system. Simple question! But you ask a creationist a simple question and he never, ever, gives a simple answer.

do you now understand my usage of the phrase “context specific”, or not?

I think I know what you intend to mean: the "context" is determined by features of the Adaptor-- but you won't say that out loud, and I think you're afraid to say it. Why is that? Are you afraid to admit your system has only three parts? If I know what you intend to mean, then you will say, "the system has three parts and the context is determined by features of the Adaptor." But I believe you will not give a direct answer, because you want to leave yourself wiggle room. You don't want to fix the number of parts in the system. You don't want to say which part(s) instantiate the context. Instead, you try to define things with examples.

For instance, the English word “apple” is a representation that operates in a system of English-speaking humans beings, but it means absolutely nothing whatsoever to earthworms or turtles or bacteria.

No, I don't want examples. You can't define "context" unless you say how many parts are in the system, and which part(s) instantiate the context. You completely ignored my questions about whether Cause and Effect are Vectors, the set of Adaptors is a matrix, etc. This is far more "clarifying" to me than a list of EXAMPLES. I don't want examples. I want mathematical definitions. Math is clarifying. Examples are not. Do you understand matrix multiplication? I'm not being snarky. If you don't understand matrix multiplication, it's all right, I promise not to make fun of you. But I would like to know why you dodged the vector questions. Diogenes

Joe said: what Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, demonstrates is there is an indirect chemical pathway, ie an alternative to what Meyer and others thought, to get the sugar and bases together. diarhea sez I am wrong but then provides a slew of posts supporting what I said, and it is too stupid to even realize that. Joe

Boldface above was disproven by Powner et al., who showed you don’t need ribose and nucleotide bases, who indeed, had none in their reaction!

But the reactions still produced ribose and you absolutely need ribose to make ribonucleotides, you moron. Also what Sutherland said proves Meyer was correct that no known natural process can produce ribonucleotides. Joe

@Dung

IS WIKIPEDIA LYING!? HUH? HUH? ARE THEY LYING!?

No. Wikipedia says a nucleotide "consists of" ribose and nucleobase and phosphate. This is true. It doesn't say you must cause make a ribose, make a base, and make them "come together." That's false.

Wikipedia: RNA is made up of a long chain of components called nucleotides. Each nucleotide consists of a nucleobase, a ribose sugar, and a phosphate group.

Wikipedia does not say that to make a nucleotide, you must form a ribose, form a nucleobase, and make them "come together." That's what Meyer says.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible…

Meyer insists the dilemma is you can't form sugars. Wikipedia didn't say that was a dilemma. Powner et al. proved it isn't, thus proving Meyer wrong, not Wikipedia.

Meyer: The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars.

Meyer says the "acute obstacle" is that you can't make ribose. Wikipedia did not say that was an "acute obstacle." Powner et al. proved it isn't, thus proving Meyer wrong, not Wikipedia. (Notice how Meyer in fact lists each problem more than once, changing the wording slightly, to make one problem seem like more than one.)

Meyer: Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

Meyer says both ribose and base are needed. That is not what Wikipedia said. Powner et al. proved Meyer wrong, not Wikipedia.

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

Meyer says you need a ribose, need a base, and they must "come together." That is not what Wikipedia said. Powner et al. proved Meyer wrong, not Wikipedia. Diogenes

No Slow, Meyer was wrong. In 2008 it was understandable, but in 2012 you idiots are just lying and playing dumb. Creationists always do this. You point out their factual falsehoods, you compare your words to facts. Creationists then play dumb, and pretend like they can't understand English. Duh. Note that Slow, like all creationists, cannot answer a simple question, nor say "I don't know." See what happened above when Dung asked me for an equation. I linked to the equation. That's what happens when you ask a scientists a question. Here's an answer. Simple. Now we have Slow writing drivel like this:

In addition Sutherland tells us (supports what Meyer said): "The contextually specific chemoselectivity, and the systems chemistry aspects of this newly uncovered self-assembly route to activated pyrimidine nucleotides suggest that the chemistry should be viewed as predisposed. However, the route as operated thus far in the laboratory is associated with several steps, and the conditions for these steps are different. Furthermore, purification in between certain steps was carried out to make analysis of the chemistry easier. Clearly, these issues need to be addressed before the synthesis can be seen as geochemically plausible."

No Slow, not one sentence above changes the fact that what Meyer wrote was disproven.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible… The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

Boldface above was disproven by Powner et al., who showed you don't need ribose and nucleotide bases, who indeed, had none in their reaction!

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

Boldface above was disproven by Powner et al., who showed you ribose and nucleotide bases don't need to "come together"-- who indeed, had none in their reaction! Slow is playing creationist: pretending to be too dumb to understand English. I'll talk creationist-style. Little Joey, Mr. Meyer says that to make a big circle, you must make a big doughnut and a little circle "come together" in the middle. But, he says, you cannot make a doughnut and little circle at the same time, so no one can make a big circle! But Mr. Powner showed that Mr. Meyer was wrong: to make a big circle, you don't have to make a big doughnut and a little circle "come together." No, you can make two half-circles and connect them. Little Joey replies: but I can SEE the doughnut and the little circle in the middle! I see them "come together" in my imagination! That means they "came together"! So Mr. Meyer is still right! In my imagination! Diogenes

Correction: bs + *bluster wateron1

So guys, do you think Diogenes has refuted UB's argument? He has been taunting on the blogosphere he has crushed the UDites beyond recovery. [Chuckle] Mungs analogy of bs + bolster = Diogenes seems to sum it up quite well, but wanted to hear your thoughts. wateron1

Meyer:

both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA.

Diogenes:

... true or false?

True. Last I checked, RNA is still composed of nucleotides. And if that's changed Wikipedia still hasn't been updated.

RNA is made up of a long chain of components called nucleotides. Each nucleotide consists of a nucleobase, a ribose sugar, and a phosphate group.

IS WIKIPEDIA LYING!? HUH? HUH? ARE THEY LYING!? chill Mung

diogenes- The following explains which step formed the "sugar", ie ribose-Ribonucleotides- John D. Sutherland In addition Sutherland tells us (supports what Meyer said):

The contextually specific chemoselectivity, and the systems chemistry aspects of this newly uncovered self-assembly route to activated pyrimidine nucleotides suggest that the chemistry should be viewed as predisposed. However, the route as operated thus far in the laboratory is associated with several steps, and the conditions for these steps are different. Furthermore, purification in between certain steps was carried out to make analysis of the chemistry easier. Clearly, these issues need to be addressed before the synthesis can be seen as geochemically plausible.

Joe

Diogenes, You seem to want skip over something here. You directly accused me of deception regarding my use of the phrase “context specific”. And you demanded that I clairify myself. You then ignored that clarification. Why is that?

Diogenes: Answer the question. Stop pretending like you don’t know what it means. As Onlooker has made very clear, you have slipped in the phrase “context specific” without defining what “context specific” means. We want a clear definition of that.

My response at #755:

UB: So you would like me to explain “context specific” in terms of the relationship between a representation and its effect within a system? Okay. A representation must operate in a “specific context” (i.e. in a specific system) in order to result in its effect. Otherwise, there will be no relationship between the representation and its effect. The existence of the relationship (between representation and effect) is therefore specific to a system (i.e. “context specific”). For instance, the English word “apple” is a representation that operates in a system of English-speaking humans beings, but it means absolutely nothing whatsoever to earthworms or turtles or bacteria. This seems to be a rather simple concept to understand, leaving virtually nothing to question regarding its meaning.

So...do you now understand my usage of the phrase “context specific”, or not? Upright BiPed

what a maroon Mung

Mung:

These are measures of information. They do not define what information is.

Diogenes:

blah rant blah MUTUAL INFORMATION!!!

Mutual information is also a measure of information. Diogenes:

Before you ask a question like that, you can’t check Wikipedia first for the equations?

Wikipedia:

In probability theory and information theory, the mutual information (sometimes known by the archaic term transinformation) of two random variables is a quantity that measures the mutual dependence of the two random variables. The most common unit of measurement of mutual information is the bit, when logarithms to the base 2 are used.

Diogenes:

Mutual information is a measure of correlation or entanglement between two properties, x and y. x and y can be any two quantities. Specifically, it measures how much your uncertainty about y decreases if you know x (and vice versa).

sigh Diogenes:

All natural processes create information.

Mung:

About what?

Diogenes:

Specifically, i measures how much your uncertainty about y decreases if you know x (and vice versa).

So this natural process creates information if someone is present and has some knowledge about x and some uncertainty about y? And if no one is there with prior knowledge about x and no uncertainty about y? Mung

So diogenes is saying that Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, did NOT produce ribonucleotides as ribonucleotides contain ribose. Ya see you cannot have a ribonucleotide without ribose yet diogenes sez they didn't produce any. Ribose is the sugar I was talking about when diogenes spewed no sugars were produced. And it also appears that diogenes is too stupid to understand the following: what Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, demonstrates is there is an indirect chemical pathway, ie an alternative to what Meyer and others thought, to get the sugar and bases together. Because he keeps posting Meyer saying they need the ribose and the bases- yet I just covered that and diogenes choked on it. Joe

Now it's 40 comments since my demolition of the "semiotic argument" in comment #749. After 40 comments, my argument has not been refuted nor even addressed. When it gets to 100 comments after my comment #749, I'll declare victory and refutation of the semiotic argument. UB: I already explained to you that your definition of "arbitrary" and "context specific" is very vague because you will not address the "null context" in which natural laws (allegedly) do not determine the outcome of the system. There are at least two contexts here, possibly many. In the normal biological context, specific causes lead to specific effects by the out-working of inexorable physical laws. That's because the normal biological case has a specific set of tRNA's. But implicit in UB's argument is that, in some other hypothetical sense, natural laws DO NOT inexorably connect a cause to the particular effect normally seen in the biological context. So there are at least two contexts (possibly many more.) Normal biological context - cause leads to specific effect determined by natural laws. "Null" context - cause leads to NO particular effect, or a "random" mix of effects, determined by natural laws. Why are these two "contexts" different? As I explained very clearly in #749 which everyone ignored, the only possible reason is that the Adaptor state must be different. So if there are at least two (or more) "contexts" and one is a "null context", then there must be at least two (or more) sets of Adaptors including one "null" set of Adaptors. The "null adaptor" can be visualized as a set of tRNA's in which each anticodon is bound equally to all 20 amino acids. I conclude that changes in "context" correspond to changes in the set of Adaptors because I think the "system" (also not defined by UB) must have only three things: Cause, Adaptor, Effect. Now here are my questions. 1. UB: do you agree that your System has nothing in it but three thing: a Cause, a set of Adaptors, and an Effect? (= codon, set of tRNA's, amino acid). 2. UB: Do you agree that the Cause and Effect are best represented as vectors as I explained above? 3. UB: Do you agree that the set of Adaptors (tRNA's) are best represented as a matrix as I explained above? Diogenes

Slow:

Slow: And yet the sugar formed, meaning I was correct and you are ignorant.

No, there was no sugar Slow. No step in the reaction made any sugar. The reaction made a half-sugar connected to a half-base. That's not a sugar. It's understandable that Meyer would make this mistake in 2008. In 2012, you people aren't making mistakes-- you're just outright lying.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible… The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

Slow: Are the words in boldface true or false?

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

Slow: Are the words in boldface true or false?

Slow: And yet the sugar formed, meaning I was correct and you are ignorant.

Tell me, Slow, what step in the reaction of Powner et al. 2009 formed a "sugar"? Specifically, which step formed a "sugar"? Do you think lying contributes to scientific progress? A person who was confident in his skills could admit when he's wrong. It might be understandable for Meyer to be wrong in 2008. But you UDites can't admit you're wrong in 2012, because you know you're intellectually inferior, so you have to keep up the appearance that you know and "care about" evidence. The appearance of authority is everything to IDists-- appearance of authority, not evidence. Do you think lying cures diseases? Diogenes

@Dung:

These are measures of information. They do not define what information is.

What source told you that? Who is the authority who told you that? Can you cite a source for that statement? They do define what information is. Unlike your cultist bafflegab, they are widely employed by thousands, if not tens of thousands, of scientists every day. No forensic scientist, no archaeologist, no anthropologist, no molecular biologist has ever employed your cultist bafflegab about CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, FSCI/O, and the other alphabet soup, in solving any real problem. You're free to come up with your own definition, but cough up the equation and THEN show it's useful, like K-C or mutual information.

Me: In the example I gave above, of air bubbles in ice cores recording the climate, that was Shannon’s mutual information, produced by natural processes.

Dung: Show us the math.

Before you ask a question like that, you can't check Wikipedia first for the equations? Mutual information is a measure of correlation or entanglement between two properties, x and y. x and y can be any two quantities. Specifically, it measures how much your uncertainty about y decreases if you know x (and vice versa). x and y can be anything, but you have to pick something interesting to make scientists care. In my example above, x = ratio of isotopes of oxygen 018 / 016 and y = climate. Any correlation between them means nonzero mutual information. K-C information is more complex. Diogenes

Diogenes:

All natural processes create information.

About what?

By information, specifically I mean: Shannon’s mutual information or Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity. Both of these are produced in vast quantities by natural processes.

These are measures of information. They do not define what information is.

In the example I gave above, of air bubbles in ice cores recording the climate, that was Shannon’s mutual information, produced by natural processes.

Show us the math.

Of course Dembski and Marks have no mathematical way of measuring how much information was connivingly “infused” by the scientists...

hypocrite Mung

"D3. Arbitrary: Not reducible to law in any context." fail "D3?. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration." fail "D3”. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism." fail Mung

Onlooker,

That’s fine, let’s find one that you do accept and that I am able to understand well enough to repeat back to you.

I have said that the relationship between a representation and its effect within a system is context specific, and I further stated that the relationship is not reducible to inexorable law. It requires the system (i.e. a specific context) in order to establish the relationship. There is nothing about that definition which is ambiguous from a material standpoint. You ask about a mechanism. The issue of the representation being materially arbitrary to its effect does not address any proposed mechanism which may establish that relationship within a system. It does not address (in one way or another) whether a potential mechanism is purely law-based, or contains stochastic or other non-deterministic elements, or otherwise – it simply acknowledges that the relationship between the representation and its effect is not a matter of inexorable law. You cannot derive one from the other (without the system). Upright BiPed

Diogenes:

@Dung

If that's meant to be some sort of insult, it's not, lol. You'll need to scroll up further in the thread to find out, because I'm not going to repeat the garbage that onlooker posted. Mung

Upright BiPed,

A precise definition of "arbitrary" was given on this thread on August 23rd. The relationship between the representation and its effect was unambiguously defined as context specific and not established by inexorable law. Any attempt to define a thing in an unambiguous manner, necessarily depends on the ability to establish a unique identifying characteristic (or characteristics) which separates that thing from other things. The unique identifying characteristic of the relationship between a representation and its effect is that the relationship is "not established by inexorable law" and is "context specific". There is no ambiguity in that definition (i.e. either the relationship is reducible to law in any context, or it’s not). As with your previous attempts to add imprecision to the argument, I do not accept your definition.

That's fine, let's find one that you do accept and that I am able to understand well enough to repeat back to you. We can start with what you just wrote: D3. Arbitrary: Not reducible to law in any context. This is better, but I have two questions. First, does "law" mean a fully deterministic mechanism or would a stochastic mechanism be covered by that term? Second, what does the "context specific" bit mean? Is it somehow essential to your definition? I see from a later comment to Diogenes that you discuss context further:

A representation must operate in a "specific context" (i.e. in a specific system) in order to result in its effect. Otherwise, there will be no relationship between the representation and its effect. The existence of the relationship (between representation and effect) is therefore specific to a system (i.e. "context specific"). For instance, the English word "apple" is a representation that operates in a system of English-speaking humans beings, but it means absolutely nothing whatsoever to earthworms or turtles or bacteria.

This does add some clarity, but makes me wonder what you mean when you said "rudicible to law in any context". Is this a better formulation of your defintion: D3'. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism operating within the system under consideration. I'm still not sure what the last bit adds. Consider this version: D3''. Arbitrary: Not established by a deterministic mechanism. Is that how you use the word in your argument? If not, what essential characteristics does that definition lack? onlooker

diogenes continues its lies:

That is not what they did. There was no ribose. They did not get the sugar and bases together because there never was a sugar!

And yet the sugar formed, meaning I was correct and you are ignorant.

What Meyer wrote on p. 301, 302 and 303 is still disproven.

Liar. Page 304:

In sum, synthesizing the building blocks of the RNA molecule under realistic prebiotic conditions has proven formidably difficult.

Just doesn’t seem to capture what diogenes said. Face it diogenes, you are a demented lowlife liar- that is an observation, not an insult. Joe

@PAV at #684: This is re: Information theorist Jeff Shallit's debunking of Meyer's bogus information theory. PAV rebuts by not even understanding a single thing about information theory. Shallit in fact pointed out many errors in Meyer's book, but PAV ignores almost all of them, only mentioning one of Shallit's arguments. Shallit discusses weather prediction algorithms, so PAV tries to rebut, but completely misunderstands:

PAV: As a thought experiment, let’s go to Denver, CO 2 million years ago. And let’s say we’re aliens from another planet. We want to know what the weather has been like over the last five years. How do we get this information? Are there any humans that exist? No. Are there any instruments for recording this information? No. Is there anything that can be used to store the information if it could be recorded in the first place? No.

Oh, come on. This is both false and irrelevant. It's irrelevant to Shallit's point which was about a weather prediction algorithm, which predicted future climate. For some unknown reason, PAV changes it to information about past weather. It's also bizarrely inaccurate. All natural processes create information. How do you think scientists reconstruct ancient climates? Lots of ways. Take an ice core from an ancient glacier: look in the air bubbles, measure the ratio of isotopes of oxygen. Bingo, climate. Look at tree rings: ring thickness, isotope ratios. Varves in ancient lakes: sediment thickness, isotope ratios tell you how much rainfall there is. Both corals and stromatolites lay down a new layer every day, not just every year, so you can reconstruct past weather day by day.

IOW, if humans didn’t exist in the first place, then this ‘information’ wouldn’t exist either. This ‘information’ that Shallit seems to think exists outside of humans is no where to be found unless, and only, if humans are there to (1) build thermometers, (2) measure the temperature, and (3) record it. No humans, then no information...

This is bizarre philosophical wishful thinking that has nothing to do with information theory. It's tautology: PAV just defines it to be so! Like most IDologues, PAV has confused 'meaning' with information. Maybe only humans can create 'meaning', but information is well-defined mathematically, and all natural processes create information. By information, specifically I mean: Shannon's mutual information or Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity. Both of these are produced in vast quantities by natural processes. In the example I gave above, of air bubbles in ice cores recording the climate, that was Shannon's mutual information, produced by natural processes. No humans required. We can only know the past because natural processes create information. As for Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity, it's increased by random mutations. Shallit is an expert in information theory and teaches a class in K-C complexity so that's what he's thinking of. Everybody knows K-C complexity is increased by natural processes. No humans required. Not controversial. So what's up with Shallit's "weather prediction" argument? Dembski and Marks claimed that computer programs can never create information-- they accuse conniving scientists of "smuggling in" all the information that comes out. There are many counter-arguments to that, but this one goes: Programmers write one general weather prediction algorithm. Remote sensors feed it current data, and it runs the algorithm for every city, town etc. on Earth. So Dembski and Marks would say that the programmers "smuggled in" some information when they wrote the program. Of course Dembski and Marks have no mathematical way of measuring how much information was connivingly "infused" by the scientists they smear as dishonest (their only method is to assume any efficiency is due to smuggling.) But they'd admit it's some finite number, like X. But the weather prediction algorithm predicts the weather for every city, town etc. every hour, hour after hour, year after year. The information Y that comes out is functional, hence specified. It involves many bits, hence complex. But it is unlimited-- wait enough years, and the amount of information Y out must eventually exceed X in. Whatever X bits Dembski and Marks accuse the scientists of "smuggling" in, Y must eventually exceed X. See Jeff Shallit for more on Meyer's bogus information theory. Diogenes

UB:

Firstly, if you are accussed of putting words in someone’s mouth, and you deny it based upon what that person has written. Then the simple resolution is to post what that person has written which supports your claim. You did not do that.

FALSE. That is exactly what I did and you know it.

Instead, you simply re-asserted your personal view on what that person had written.

FALSE. I'M the one who copied the quotes above! You wouldn't. Joe wouldn't. Did I or did I not copy the quotes here?

Secondly, I own Meyer’s book, and I have reviewed the pages in question.

Then you have no excuse! Why didn't YOU copy the quotes two weeks ago?

In truth, Meyer’s comments are not even controversial.

Irrelevant. The question is: were they accurate? Joe says they were. Do you agree?

The simple fact is that you have grossly misrepresented Meyer, and then attacked his character on the grounds of your own wilfull misrepresentation.

FALSE. I didn't attack Meyer's integrity on the grounds of the nucleotide thing. I could've attacked Meyer's character on a half dozen OTHER issues, but not the nucleotides. About the nucleotides, Meyer was just wrong, not dishonest. A lot of people made that mistake. What's insufferable is that Joe and you won't even admit he was wrong! You (esp Joe) double down, and say he was right. I'm attacking YOUR character, by quoting your own words.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible… The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

UB: Are the words in boldface true or false?

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

UB: Are the words in boldface true or false?

UB: Instead, you simply re-asserted your personal view on what that person had written.

UB, is that true of false? Take a look at several comments above. Did you notice any blockquotes up there, maybe? Like with page numbers? Like maybe the quotes that you and Joe refused for 2 weeks to copy from the books in your hands? Diogenes

Joe demands quotes from me. But I'm not allowed to ask quotes from Joe. If the quote actually disproved what I wrote, then why didn't Joe just copy out two sentences himself, two weeks ago? Two sentences would be enough to prove me wrong-- if I were wrong. So what was he afraid of? And now Joe doubles down.

Joe: what Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, demonstrates is there is an indirect chemical pathway, ie an alternative to what Meyer and others thought, to get the sugar and bases together.

YES, I SAID that because it is what they did. Don’t blame me for your ignorance.

NO. That is not what they did. There was no ribose. They did not get the sugar and bases together because there never was a sugar! What Meyer wrote on p. 301, 302 and 303 is still disproven.

You are one demented lowlife.

You can issue all the insults you want-- you have to, because you've got nothing but ad hominems. You UDites are only "good" at insults, but you don't know any science. They did not get the sugar and bases together because there never was a sugar! No matter how many insults you type out, it does not make a sugar magically appear and link to a ribose! What Meyer wrote on p. 301, 302 and 303 is still disproven. Here is how Joe asks me for quotes:

Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. Please provide the quote or admit that you made it up. [#528]

So he demands I provide a quote. If I don’t provide a quote, then Joe says I’m lying. Now compare that to what happens when I ask Joe for a quote.

Diogenes: I don’t have a copy on hand. Since you do, please copy the text from page 303. [#536]

Joe: And no, I am not your secretary so I will not be wasting my time copying an entire page just so that you can see for yourself that you are FoS. [#544]

If the quote really disproved my point, why didn't Joe copy it out? He can't take a cell phone photo of one page? It's 2012. I could take a cell phone photo of a page and do OCR on my cell phone. But Joe can't, because it would make him look bad. He wants to change the subject!

Joe: Then shut up about it because obvioulsy you don’t have a clue. [#537]

Joe can demand quotes from me. But I cannot demand quotes from Joe. Why? Joe would not provide the quote because he read that page, and he knew it would prove he was lying. When Joe demands that I provide a quote-- well! If I don’t provide the quote when he asks, Joe calls me a liar. When I demand Joe provides a quote-- well! If Joe doesn't provide the quote when I ask, then Joe also calls me a liar-- I'm a liar because he wouldn't provide the quote. Diogenes

So, returning to the subject on the table... (and the topic of the thread) Diogenes, you returned and immediately accused me of deception regarding my use of the phrase "context specific" and you demanded I clarify.

Diogenes: Answer the question. Stop pretending like you don’t know what it means. As Onlooker has made very clear, you have slipped in the phrase “context specific” without defining what “context specific” means. We want a clear definition of that.

So I responded at #755:

UB: So you would like me to explain “context specific” in terms of the relationship between a representation and its effect within a system? Okay. A representation must operate in a “specific context” (i.e. in a specific system) in order to result in its effect. Otherwise, there will be no relationship between the representation and its effect. The existence of the relationship (between representation and effect) is therefore specific to a system (i.e. “context specific”). For instance, the English word “apple” is a representation that operates in a system of English-speaking humans beings, but it means absolutely nothing whatsoever to earthworms or turtles or bacteria. This seems to be a rather simple concept to understand, leaving virtually nothing to question regarding its meaning.

Do you undertsnd my usage of the phrase "context specific", or not? Upright BiPed

diogenes, You have serious issues. Meyer never said what YOU claimed he said and nothing you have quoted supports your claims. Also all four nucleotides have been formed under LAB conditions, not under natural/ prebiotic conditions. And the conditions are not the same for all four. what Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, demonstrates is there is an indirect chemical pathway, ie an alternative to what Meyer and others thought, to get the sugar and bases together.

NO. It does not say that. They showed that a molecule can form which is (to simplify) half-ribose and half-base.

YES, I SAID that because it is what they did. Don't blame me for your ignorance.

When I asked Joe for the quote, he informed that he was too good to provide quotes.

Dude, you are lying, again, as usual. You asked me to type out the entire page, and in the end it would have required pages to satisfy your nonsense. And nothing you have posted suggested that I lied about what was in the book. You are one demented lowlife. Joe

Diogenes, I am asking you. Will you please collect yourself and settle down. Firstly, if you are accussed of putting words in someone's mouth, and you deny it based upon what that person has written. Then the simple resolution is to post what that person has written which supports your claim. You did not do that. Instead, you simply re-asserted your personal view on what that person had written. ANY even-minded person, regardless of their position on the matter, will easily agree that this falls way below the requirement to validate your claim. Secondly, I own Meyer's book, and I have reviewed the pages in question. Nowhere on these pages does he say anything to the effect that "we had already proven that nucleotides could not be made by natural processes". All Meyers had done is point out the complications involved in the chemistry - something that origins researchers themselves have known, and have talked about in their own published works. In truth, Meyer's comments are not even controversial. The simple fact is that you have grossly misrepresented Meyer, and then attacked his character on the grounds of your own wilfull misrepresentation. There is nothing reasonable or honext about what you have done. So, why do it? It does not make your case. Upright BiPed

@Dung-

You didn’t quote anything that came even remotely close to Meyer making a prediction that it would be proven that all nucleotides could not be formed spontaneously.

Meyer said it had already been proven that all nucleotides could be formed by natural processes.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible… The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

Dung: Are the words in boldface true or false?

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

Dung: Are the words in boldface true or false? Do you know any science at all? Any? Diogenes

@Joe:

Diogenes: In fact, Meyer said we had already proven that nucleotides could not be made by natural processes.

Joe: No, he did not say such a thing and we still do not know if natural processes can do it, anyway. [#766]

NO. That is what he said.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible… The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

Diogenes

lol. Don't have a stroke D. Mung

@Joe:

...what Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, demonstrates is there is an indirect chemical pathway, ie an alternative to what Meyer and others thought, to get the sugar and bases together.

NO. It does not say that. They showed that a molecule can form which is (to simplify) half-ribose and half-base. Then other simple stuff is added to that. There's no sugar and base to "get together", so what Meyer wrote on pages 301 and 303 is false, and what Joe wrote is false. And on page 302, Meyer says that nucleotides have never been found on meteorites. Also false, lots of organic chemicals including nucleotides on Murchison meteorite. None of you have any comebacks except personal attacks and ad hominems. Diogenes

Here is what Joe wrote:

Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. Please provide the quote or admit that you made it up. [#528]

So he demands I provide a quote. If I don't provide a quote, then he says I'm lying. Now compare that to what happens when I ask Joe for a quote.

Diogenes: I don’t have a copy on hand. Since you do, please copy the text from page 303. [#536]

Joe demands that I provide a quote. If I don't provide the quote when he asks, Joe calls me a liar. But if Joe doesn't provide the quote when I ask, he's too precious and valuable. This is how he responds.

Joe: And no, I am not your secretary so I will not be wasting my time copying an entire page just so that you can see for yourself that you are FoS. [#544]

Joe: Then shut up about it because obvioulsy you don’t have a clue. [#537]

Now here's what Joe wrote.

Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. [#528]

He was lying.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible… The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303]

The stuff in boldface is disproven by Powner et al. 2009. That's one falsehood among many. Two pages previously:

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

The stuff in boldface is disproven by Powner et al. 2009. Joe had the book in hand. Joe read what it said. He knew what it said. Here's what Joe wrote.

Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. [#528]

You twits have no response except infantile personal attacks, ad hominems, and more lies. None of you know any science, which is bad enough, but on top of that you're pathological liars. Joe lied about what was in the book. Joe was gambling I wouldn't get the book from the libary. He lost. I can forgive people for not knowing anything about science. Hell, not everybody needs to know about science. But you people are infantile, you know nothing about science, and your only responses are personal attacks and ad hominems. When I asked Joe for the quote, he informed that he was too good to provide quotes. Joe can demand quotes from me. But I cannot demand quotes from Joe. Why? Joe would not provide the quote because he read that page, and he knew it would prove he was lying. Diogenes

diogenes predicted response to StephenB's post:

LoL! Of COURSE Meyer had to say something to save face after saying it was already proven it couldn't be done! Intervention was necessary to shorten the time as we didn't have X millions of years to wait. Geesh. There was nothing but chemistry at play and Meyer was wrong for saying it would never be accomplished. Heck 2009 the same year his book was published for Pete's sake. He had to say something to save face. Come on you know it. Infantile to the last.

Joe

Page 304:

In sum, synthesizing the building blocks of the RNA molecule under realistic prebiotic conditions has proven formidably difficult.

Just doesn't seem to capture what diogenes said. That said, what Nature 459, 239-242 2009 Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, demonstrates is there is an indirect chemical pathway, ie an alternative to what Meyer and others thought, to get the sugar and bases together. And it is a step towards demonstrating ribonucleotides can form under realistic prebiotic conditions. There are still difficulties in getting the purines and pyrimidine ribonucleotides together, and together long enough to form chains and even longer to find a sequence that actually does something and gets to doing it. Joe

Diogenes:

But that was disproven in 2009, right before Meyer’s book hit bookshelves, by the work of Powner et al. 2009. They showed that you can start with simple molecules and, instead of linking ribose to a base, start with a half-ribose linked to a half-base. Add some simple chemicals, and you get a full nucleotide. A little UV radiation finishes off the process, destroys the “bad” nucleotides but leaves the “good” nucleotides.

Stephen Meyer: ...."This study does partially address one, though only one, of the many outstanding difficulties associated with the RNA world scenario, the most popular current theory of the undirected chemical evolution of life. Starting with several simple chemical compounds, Powner and colleagues successfully synthesized a pyrimidine ribonucleotide, one of the building blocks of the RNA molecule. Nevertheless, this work does nothing to address the much more acute problem of explaining how the nucleotide bases in DNA or RNA acquired their specific information-rich arrangements, which is the central topic of my book. In effect, the Powner study helps explain the origin of the “letters” in the genetic text, but not their specific arrangement into functional “words” or “sentences.” Moreover, Powner and colleagues only partially addressed the problem of generating the constituent building blocks of RNA under plausible pre-biotic conditions. The problem, ironically, is their own skillful intervention. To ensure a biologically-relevant outcome, they had to intervene—repeatedly and intelligently—in their experiment: first, by selecting only the right-handed isomers of sugar that life requires; second, by purifying their reaction products at each step to prevent interfering cross-reactions; and third, by following a very precise procedure in which they carefully selected the reagents and choreographed the order in which they were introduced into the reaction series. Thus, not only does this study not address the problem of getting nucleotide bases to arrange themselves into functionally-specified sequences, but the extent to which it does succeed in producing biologically-relevant chemical constituents of RNA actually illustrates the indispensable role of intelligence in generating such chemistry........." StephenB

Diogenes:

But I was wrong to say that Meyer predicted that someday we would prove that nucleotides could not be made by natural processes.

Diogenes:

In Stephen Meyer’s risible book, he predicted it would be proven that all nucleotides could not be formed spontaneously. Meyer’s ID “predictions” were experimentally disproven by the time his book hit the bookshelves– what a maroon.

Diogenes:

Notice that not one UDite even attempted a rebuttal, or addressed the science in anyway. Personal attacks they can do.

lol. This is an ID web site. You may want to get your facts straight before posting things about what an ID author has written. Mung

diogenes:

Stephen Meyer wants to say that simple chemistry, as would exist on the primitive earth, can’t make nucleotides.

Except he doesn't say that. he says there would be obstacles and difficulties- and there would be. For example the environment for making two of the nucleotides has to be different thatn the environment to make the other two. Also it took the skill of chemists to pull it all off.

In fact, Meyer said we had already proven that nucleotides could not be made by natural processes.

No, he did not say such a thing and we still do not know if natural processes can do it, anyway. Joe

@PeterJ - Notice that not one UDite even attempted a rebuttal, or addressed the science in anyway. Personal attacks they can do. Science? Nah. No one here will explain to you what I actually wrote, because it would reveal Joe's dishonesty, and how ignorant are the authorities they trust on science. So I'll explain it to you in layman's terms. It started with my comment #516,517 above. I listed several inaccuracies in predictions made by ID advocates (and I could have listed more); one was about statements by Stephen Meyer in Signature in the Cell on nucleotides and the origin of life. Joe asked me for the page number.

Joe: Please tell me the page number of Meyer’s alleged prediction pertaining to the nucleotides. [#520]

I reply. Simple question, simple answer.

Diogenes: Page 303. [#525]

Simple, right? That's what happens when you ask an scientist a question: no drama; you get a direct answer, or else "I don't know." Now compare this to what happens when I ask a creationist a simple question.

Diogenes: I don’t have a copy on hand. Since you do, please copy the text from page 303. [#536]

This is how creationists answer a simple question.

Joe: And no, I am not your secretary so I will not be wasting my time copying an entire page just so that you can see for yourself that you are FoS. [#544]

And

Joe: Then shut up about it because obvioulsy you don’t have a clue. [#537]

Now since I have the page number, and Joe has the book, we could work together and discuss it, right? But that's not possible with infantile creationists.

Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. Please provide the quote or admit that you made it up. [#528]

It took me a couple of weeks to get to the university library, check out the book, and scan it. Here's what's on pages 301-4. Stephen Meyer wants to say that simple chemistry, as would exist on the primitive earth, can't make nucleotides. This is because most scientists believe the first self-replicating systems were RNA molecules that could copy themselves (the "RNA World") before there was DNA or proteins. And RNA is a string of nucleotides. So how could the nucleotides be made? A nucleotide looks like a ribose (that's a sugar) linked to a base molecule (the nucleobase); with a phosphate. Phosphates are common. So Meyer says no chemistry on the early earth could make nucleotides, because, he says, all nucleotides must be formed from a ribose linked to a base. Now we know that simple chemistry can make sugars (like ribose), but that chemistry won't work around nitrogenous chemicals. And you need nitrogen to make the base. So Meyer says it's been proven that no natural processes could make nucleotides. But that was disproven in 2009, right before Meyer's book hit bookshelves, by the work of Powner et al. 2009. They showed that you can start with simple molecules and, instead of linking ribose to a base, start with a half-ribose linked to a half-base. Add some simple chemicals, and you get a full nucleotide. A little UV radiation finishes off the process, destroys the "bad" nucleotides but leaves the "good" nucleotides. So Meyer's statements on this (which I quoted above) and many other topics were factually false. But I was wrong to say that Meyer predicted that someday we would prove that nucleotides could not be made by natural processes. In fact, Meyer said we had already proven that nucleotides could not be made by natural processes. This was false. Nature 459, 239-242 2009. Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland. Diogenes

Thanks UB, Mung and Joe. I understand. He's what is called where I come from 'at it' :o) An interesting link on ENV. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6102/1628.abstract "Digital information is accumulating at an astounding rate, straining our ability to store and archive it. DNA is among the most dense and stable information media known. The development of new technologies in both DNA synthesis and sequencing make DNA an increasingly feasible digital storage medium. We developed a strategy to encode arbitrary digital information in DNA, wrote a 5.27-megabit book using DNA microchips, and read the book by using next-generation DNA sequencing." I wonder what Onlooker would make of the use of the word 'Arbitrary' in this context? ;o) PeterJ

But can someone please point out, in laymans terms, why he is mistaken?

Yes, I can. One person didn't like what another person was saying. So he assigned something to that person that the person didn't say - then attacked it. It's a common tactic. It's used as a vehicle to demonize the person and argument you don't want to hear. This thread has been rich with it. Upright BiPed

So he took out his knife and cut everybody up and left.

It felt like a spoon, and look, no cuts! But I am sure in his mind we are all in pieces... Joe

UB: Yes, I can. He performed a drive-by. I was of the opinion that Diogene's wasn't perhaps understanding Meyers. But can someone please point out, in laymans terms, why he is mistaken? Thanks. PeterJ

Can someone please give an explanation for Diogene’s claims at #750.

Yes, I can. He performed a drive-by. He really doesn't like the argument in the OP and he's mad at me for making it. He also hates Joe, Mung, and Steven Meyer. So he took out his knife and cut everybody up and left. He'll probably be back later. Upright BiPed

Diogenes, YOU have serious integrity issues:

Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301]

Nope, that doesn't support your claim.

Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible…

Nope, that doesn't support your claim.

The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA.

Not ONE prediction that all nucleotides could not form. Just Meyer pointing out obstacles and difficulties. That said having all nucleotides form in a lab under different conditions- not all form under the same conditions- is not the same as having all nucleotides form in nature. PS- Thanks Mung Joe

Can someone please give an explanation for Diogene's claims at #750. Thanks. PeterJ

b.s. + bluster = diogenes Mung

Upright BiPed, You failed to represent "apple" mathematically. Mung

Diogenes,

Answer the question. Stop pretending like you don’t know what it means. As Onlooker has made very clear, you have slipped in the phrase “context specific” without defining what “context specific” means. We want a clear definition of that

So you would like me to explain “context specific” in terms of the relationship between a representation and its effect within a system? Okay. A representation must operate in a “specific context” (i.e. in a specific system) in order to result in its effect. Otherwise, there will be no relationship between the representation and its effect. The existence of the relationship (between representation and effect) is therefore specific to a system (i.e. "context specific"). For instance, the English word “apple” is a representation that operates in a system of English-speaking humans beings, but it means absolutely nothing whatsoever to earthworms or turtles or bacteria. This seems to be a rather simple concept to understand, leaving virtually nothing to question regarding its meaning. Upright BiPed

2 + 2 = 4. Therefore, two sheep plus two sheep causes four sheep. haha. the captcha question was [] + 2 = four what are the odds of that!? Mung

Diogenes:

In Stephen Meyer’s risible book, he predicted it would be proven that all nucleotides could not be formed spontaneously...Later I cited, specifically, page 303.

Meyer makes no predictions on page 303. That makes Joe right and you wrong. Care to try again? Diogenes:

Please copy in page 303. What are you hiding?

Meyer makes no predictions on page 303. That makes Joe right and you wrong. No need to hide anything. Diogenes:

Let’s check out Signature in the Cell, pages 301 to 303.

Well, there's no prediction on page 303, even though you asserted quite strongly that there was. So now what, it's on page 301 0r 302? Which? Both? You didn't quote anything that came even remotely close to Meyer making a prediction that it would be proven that all nucleotides could not be formed spontaneously. Mung

2 + 2 = 4. Therefore, two plus two causes four. Mung

Diogenes:

UB says “representation” is something that “evokes” an effect within a system. So it’s a cause.

fail Mung

@Joe - Remember what I wrote about Stephen Meyer's falsified prediction in Signature in the Cell? Remember Joe, how you lied about what was in the book? Me: In Stephen Meyer’s risible book, he predicted it would be proven that all nucleotides could not be formed spontaneously. Meyer’s ID “predictions” were experimentally disproven by the time his book hit the bookshelves... Later I cited, specifically, page 303. Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. Please provide the quote or admit that you made it up. I didn't have the book then. So you thought you could get away with lying to me, like a typical creationist. Me: I don’t have a copy on hand. Joe: Then shut up about it because obvioulsy you don’t have a clue But I just scanned the book, Joe. Are you going to stand behind your statements, Joe? You gonna double down on that, little doggie? You had the book then, Joe. You lied about its contents, which is why you wouldn't quote it. Me: Please copy in page 303. What are you hiding? Joe: And no, I am not your secretary so I will not be wasting my time copying an entire page just so that you can see for yourself that you are FoS. No, Joe couldn't scan one darn page from that book, couldn't do OCR because he was lying like a typical creationist. Now you see what it's like arguing with creationists. I scanned the book, Joe, so I know you were lying about what was on page 303. You gonna double down on that, little doggie? Let's check out Signature in the Cell, pages 301 to 303. Meyer: Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil). [p. 301] Meyer: This obviously poses a couple of difficulties. First, it creates a dilemma for scenarios that envision proteins and nucleic acids arising out of a prebiotic soup rich in amino acids. Either the prebiotic environment contained amino acids, which would have prevented sugars (and thus DNA and RNA) from forming, or the prebiotic soup contained no amino acids, making protein synthesis impossible... The RNA-world hypothesis faces an even more acute, but related, obstacle—a kind of catch-22. The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA. [p. 303] Again, experimentally disproven. Now you see what it's like arguing with creationists. They're not just liars, but childish and infantile liars. Also their predictions are experimentally disproven, but on top of that, they're freaking INFANTILE. Diogenes

748 Comments and the Argument in the OP is disproven. Now I'm going to make a guess at what UB means by "context specific". Probably he'll accuse me of putting words in his mouth blah blah and say that's not his meaning. But somebody around here has to make stuff mathematical. UB isn't and Joe and Mung the stupid parrot can't. So here's my guess. UB says "representation" is something that "evokes" an effect within a system. So it's a cause. I don't know what's the difference between "causing" an effect and "evoking" an effect and I'm tired of UB's waffle words. We know UB means "cause" so I'm calling it a cause. Let's call the set of causes Ci, where i = 1,... up to some number of possible states. Now if C means a codon triplet, then i would go from 1 to 64. Now you have a system, meaning: cause yields effect via an adapter or set of adapters. Ci * {A} --> Ej Here the Adapters "instantiate" the "protocol" (yargh, more bafflegab) so they're tRNA's. The Effect is an amino acid Ej, where j = 1,... 20. In the real world there are 64 codons and 20 amino acids, and the system is degenerate. Contra what UB writes, the genetic system does not transfer information. The genetic system is degenerate, it copies information partially into a different form but, LOSING information along the way. It's a lossy system. Now we all know about 64 codons and 20 amino acids, but for simplicity I'm going to limit us to single nucleotides a,g,c,u so i = 1 to 4, and just two amino acids, j = 1..2. So C is a 4-vector and E is a 2-vector and the Adaptor is a 2x4 matrix. Let's say that in our simple genetic code, the purines yield Asp and the pyrimidines yield Lys. So if Ci is [ a] [ g] [ c] [ u] And Ej is [D K] Then the Adaptor would be a 2x4 matrix [1 1 0 0] [0 0 1 1] Where Ej = A * Ci. Now here is where "context" and "arbitrary" comes in. The Adapter is a set of tRNA's, and the their anticodons could (theoretically) be linked to a variety of amino acids. Different SETS of tRNA's would yield different matrices. The matrix I wrote down is just one among many imaginable. That's where "arbitary" comes in: "Arbitrary" means A is one matrix among many possible -- THEORETICALLY but maybe not experimentally in practice!. However, all the matrices like A must obey certain mathematical rules. Within those rules, many are still possible, at least theoretically (probably some are forbidden by the laws of physics.) If you have an deterministic, error-free protocol, then each COLUMN of A must have a 1 and a 0. If you have a protocol that's not deterministic, or full of errors, then you could maybe have a column that has fractional entries. [0.9 1 0 0.2] [0.1 0 1 0.8] Get it? That matrix makes translation errors. By "context" we must mean a set of tRNA's that define the columns in a particular matrix. IF the laws of physics permit the anticodons in each conceivable tRNA to bind to any amino acid (Big If!), then all matrices are possible-- so long as the entries in each column add up to 1. By "not fixed by inexorable laws", we are ASSUMING (big assumption) that there exists a "null state", or "natural state", or "primordial state" (whatever you want to call it) where the laws of physics would cause each anticodon in each conceivable tRNA to bind EQUALLY to each amino acid. This "null state" would be defined by a "null adaptor", let's call it A0: A0 = [0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5] [0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5] So that's how I'd define "not fixed by inexorable laws". What's so darn confusing about UB's posts is that, when he talks about "context" and "inexorable laws" etc., UB is implicitly assuming a "null state" in which the laws of physcis demand that each anticodon bind equally to each amino acid. This "null state" is implicit in UB's ideas of "context" and "deterministic", etc. but UB does not spell out the "null state", which must first 1. be defined 2. be proven experimentally to exist and in accordance with the laws of physics. But UB didn't define it; and he just ASSUMED that the laws of physics could make a matrix like A0 above. Anyway, it's not possible. I cited papers above which show that anticodons bind preferentially to certain amino acids, so experiment shows that the null state A0 that I defined above is NOT produced by the laws of physics. UB assumed it but did not prove it exists. See: RNA riboswitches bind amino acids: Yarus et al. (Yarus M, Widmann JJ, Knight R, 2009, RNA–Amino Acid Binding: A Stereochemical Era for the Genetic Code, J Mol Evol 69:406–429. See Also: Imprints of the genetic code in the ribosome. D.B.F. Johnson, Lei Wang. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Apr 12. The fact that UB implicitly invokes a null state or "null context" when he talks about "context specific" is confusing as heck to Onlooker and everyone who knows math or molecular biology. Again: 748 Comments and the Argument is disproven. Diogenes

Yeah defining words using dictionaries is for chumps. And no, my post in 691 does not say the fix is in. If someone just anted up and demonstrated that necessity and chance are up to the task then UB's argument falls. Joe

I want representation! - Diogenes lol. Mung

UB, Answer the question. Stop pretending like you don't know what it means. As Onlooker has made very clear, you have slipped in the phrase "context specific" without defining what "context specific" means. We want a clear definition of that. This is the whole problem with ID pseudomath. ID pseudomath and bafflegab is filled with terms like "specification" (Dembski) and, in this thread, "representation", "information", "form of a thing", "transfer", "protocol", "context" etc. etc. which are deliberately vaguely defined. The trick is obvious right from the OP. UB only defines these words by 1. Defining words in terms of other words that aren't themselves defined. 1a. e.g. information is "form of a thing". What the hell is "form of a thing"? How do you measure how much "form" is produced by a process? My footprint is in the form of my foot. Don't natural processes produces forms of things, thus, information, in vast quantities? 1.b. "Arbitrary" defined as: "The relationship between the representation and its effect was unambiguously defined as context specific..." Well what's context specific? 2. UB's other way of defining terms is by listing examples, right there in the OP, so the fix is in from the beginning. UB only lists examples which include artificial constructs, like human language, plus DNA/genetic code/ biological things. Nothing that might be produced by natural processes. To exclude these, UB leaves words vaguely defined so that he and Joe can arbitrarily exclude everything that results from natural processes. Argument from authority. If UB precisely defined his terms, a counter-example of representation, form, protocol, information, effect, etc. could always be found that consists of observed natural processes. But Joe in comment #691 tips us off that the fix is in. They're going to exclude all natural counter-examples ("chance and necessity"-- more cultist bafflegab!), so all "semiotic" terminology must be re-defined on the fly by the hierophants of ID. That way, everything boils down to argument from authority. So if UB defines a word in terms of other things that are not defined ("form of a thing"), or defines thing by listing examples that exclude natural processes, then they hold on to rhetorical wiggle room to exclude counter-examples. Onlooker: Thank you for putting forward your own definition. This is the first I remember you using the idea of “context specific within a system”. It sounds like my other proposed definition might be closer to what you are trying to express: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Is that what you mean by context specific connections? If not, could you please give an example of a context specific connection? Unlike Onlooker, I don't want an "example" of a context specific connection. Defining things by examples is the whole problem here. I want it defined in mathematical language, not by examples. I want representation as a vector, protocol as a matrix, different contexts as different matrices, effect as a vector, etc. The OP here is aping a mathematical proof. Alas, neither UB nor Joe nor the stupid parrot Mung sitting on Joe's shoulder seem to understand how mathematical proofs need terms to be precisely defined, NOT defined by examples! Diogenes

She's got you pegged Upright BiPed: incoherently erudite. Mung

Onlooker, A precise definition of “arbitrary” was given on this thread on August 23rd. The relationship between the representation and its effect was unambiguously defined as context specific and not established by inexorable law. Any attempt to define a thing in an unambiguous manner, necessarily depends on the ability to establish a unique identifying characteristic (or characteristics) which separates that thing from other things. The unique identifying characteristic of the relationship between a representation and its effect is that the relationship is "not established by inexorable law" and is "context specific". There is no ambiguity in that definition (i.e. either the relationship is reducible to law in any context, or it’s not). As with your previous attempts to add imprecision to the argument, I do not accept your definition. Your rhetorical victory is at hand. Upright BiPed

onlooker, If this really shouldn't be like pulling teeth, then why are YOU making it so? And please define every one of your words so that we can understand what it is you are trying to say to Upright Biped. Perhaps by doing so you will see, as all objective onlookers do, that you are being just a tad absurd in your complaints. Joe

Upright BiPed,

You were given a precise definition of "arbitrary" as used in the statement: "the relationship between a representation and its effect within the system is materially arbitrary". It first appeared seven hundred and twenty-eight comments ago, on August 23rd. The relationship between the representation and the effect was defined as context specific and not established by inexorable law.

I will quote myself from comment 658, since you have not yet responded with any real content to that:

Thank you for putting forward your own definition. This is the first I remember you using the idea of "context specific within a system". It sounds like my other proposed definition might be closer to what you are trying to express: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Is that what you mean by context specific connections? If not, could you please give an example of a context specific connection?

So, could you? This really shouldn't be like pulling teeth. Either you know what you mean or you are just babbling incoherently in an attempt to sound erudite without any real meat to your argument. As it stands, your continued refusal to engage in discussion in good faith supports the latter hypothesis. Either clarify your argument or admit that you can't and stop using it. Anything else is intellectually dishonest. onlooker

So enjoy your rhetorical victory over physical evidence. You have gained the intellectual equivalent of saddles on dinosaurs.

Mung

Onlooker, You poor thing. You were given a precise definition of “arbitrary” as used in the statement: “the relationship between a representation and its effect within the system is materially arbitrary". It first appeared seven hundred and twenty-eight comments ago, on August 23rd. The relationship between the representation and the effect was defined as context specific and not established by inexorable law. The fact that is it precise in its usage is the very reason you must call it imprecise and run from it. In fact, this has been the entire issue all along. Your problem, and the problem of those around you at TSZ, is that my definitions of the objects within my argument are defined entirely by their material existence, and therefore those definitions don't leave you the rhetorical wiggle room you are so fond of. I use a descriptive word like "representation", but I define it specifically as an arrangement of matter that evokes an effect within a system. I then use a word like “protocol”, but I define it as an arrangement of matter that materially establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between a representation and its effect. I use a word like “evoke” to describe the action a representation has within the system, but I clearly differentiate it from the action of a protocol, which physically determines what the effect will be. You are left with a coherent observation of a system in operation, with each complimentary action clearly defined. You simply cannot handle it, and as a very common human consequence, you run your mouth instead. So enjoy your rhetorical victory over physical evidence. You have gained the intellectual equivalent of saddles on dinosaurs. Upright BiPed

onlooker:

I asked for a precise definition.

Please give us a precise definition of a precise definition. A way to measure just how precise it is would also be useful. After all, how are we to know that you haven't already been given a precise definition and just arbitrarily dismissed it? onlooker:

I used yours to come up with two possibilities: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations.

What makes these definitions of yours precise definitions and the definition offered by UPB not precise? Your arbitrary say so? Do any of the dictionary definitions of arbitrary meet your standard for a precise definition? Has it occurred to you that by the mere fact that you have given two (or is it three) definitions of your own, you've established that none of them are precise?

We’re over 700 comments into this discussion...

...and you're still making a fool of yourself. grats. That takes some dedication to playing the fool. Mung

Upright Biped, Did you miss me? Please excuse my absence over the weekend -- I seem to have briefly possessed an offline life. Don't worry, I don't expect that to happen again soon.

Onlooker: As I’ve stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim. I have been trying to get a precise definition of what you mean by "arbitrary" in order to be able to parse this, but you are remarkably resistent to providing that.

. . . . . So… I cannot give you an example in order to clarify "arbitrary":

UB: Let’s say you take the genetic symbol C-T-A and put it in your pocket for safe keeping. And tomorrow, you will…

I asked for a precise definition. Examples are fine to help arrive at such a definition, and I used yours to come up with two possibilities: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. You have yet to accept either one or offer a precise one of your own. You use the word repeatedly in your argument and it appears to be important to whatever it is you are trying to convey, so one could reasonably expect that you have a definition in mind. What is it?

And I cannot get you to give me an example of your understanding in order to clarify "arbitrary":

UB: Tell me exactly, in specific language, what you do not understand

I told you quite clearly what I don't understand. Here is the relevant text again:

Tell me exactly, in specific language, what you do not understand about the bolded text. If you can articulate your problem, then I can answer you.

That would be refreshing. Here is the bolded text, for easy reference:

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

As I've stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim. I have been trying to get a precise definition of what you mean by "arbitrary" in order to be able to parse this, but you are remarkably resistent to providing that. I am therefore asking you to rephrase this, preferably in a clear and concise format, to make it clear what you are trying to say. keiths gave an excellent example of how to lay out an argument over at TSZ. You could do worse than to emulate that.

Please explain exactly what you are trying to convey. If your restatement includes the word "arbitrary", please provide a precise definition of exactly what you mean by it when you are using it in this particular claim and argument.

And at the same time, you’ll acknowledge a clarification of “arbitrary” in one post, but then forget it in the next:

UB: There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are "materially arbitrary". Onlooker: Thank you for putting forward your own definition

Interesting place to cut out context. Here's the full text (obviously available to anyone reading this thread):

Thank you for putting forward your own definition. This is the first I remember you using the idea of "context specific within a system". It sounds like my other proposed definition might be closer to what you are trying to express: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Is that what you mean by context specific connections? If not, could you please give an example of a context specific connection?

I note that you yet again chose not to address the direct questions I have posed, preferring instead to cut bits and pieces from my comments and avoid any real discussion of your argument. I think keiths' comment from The Skeptical Zone bears repeating again:

You, on the other hand, seem ashamed of your argument and afraid of what might happen if you stated it clearly and explicitly. Instead of clarifying, you obfuscate. Instead of answering questions straightforwardly, you evade them. You complain that others are misrepresenting your position, but when they ask you for correction, you refuse to give it. Then you declare victory, saying that no one has defeated your argument! For you, the entire exercise seems to be more about saving face than it is about communicating your ideas. In fact, you appear to be deliberately avoiding communication precisely in order to save face. Why should anyone take your argument seriously if you are so ashamed of it? Why are you afraid to communicate it in a way that your audience will actually understand?

We're over 700 comments into this discussion and you have still refused to explain your argument, despite repeated, explicit requests and direct questions explaining the areas of confusion. It's time to show some intellectual integrity and confidence in your argument. If you don't take it seriously enough to explain it clearly, there's no rason for anyone else to consider it as anything but creationist bafflegab. onlooker

To the TSZ ilk still reading this- You still don't have any evidence to support your position, meaning taht you could NOT come up with any argument for your position. And that bothers you so much that you are forced to lash out at your opponents who actually have the stuff to put forth a positive argument. Evidence is the only thing that will refute UB and evidence is the very thing your position lacks. 1- There isn't any evidence that the first living organisms were more simple, ie did not require proteins to make proteins 2- There isn't any evidence for a RNA world 3- There isn't any evidence that self-replicating macro-molecules can arise via blind and undiorected chemical processes 4- There isn't any evidence that replicating macro-molecules can evolve into something else You have absolutely nothing and it bothers you. Life is good... Joe

And should we just write it of to pure dumb luck that the very system itself just happens to be one via which evolution can take place? Mung

After two days of silence, it would appear that Onlooker has abandoned the pretense of not understanding the words. His participation was a farce from the start. He began with "I think you deserve a lot of credit for discussing your argument in what, despite Lizzie’s best efforts, could easily be considered a hostile venue. " and ended with "you have nothing but incoherent word salad that you refuse to clarify out of fear that your position might be refuted". Between the two he ignored all the definitions and refused all the examples. From Onlooker, there was never going to be a refutation. The transfer of recorded information requires an irreducible core of two arrangements of matter; one which evokes an effect within a system by virtue of its arrangement (which is materially abitrary to the effect it evokes), and a second arrangement which must materially establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its effect. This observed reality indicates that the transfer of biological information is not only the oldest and most prodigious form of irreducible complexity on Earth, but is the very thing required for Darwinian evolution to even exist. Upright BiPed

LoL! "R0b" used arbitrary in the standard way but they could not tell that UB was doing so because of the way he uses the word "information". Here ya go keiths- information as a thing So the bottom line is the ilk from the TSZ are not as educated as they want us to believe and they think their ignorance refutes ID. Joe

onlooker banned from UD (sort of):

(Added in edit 27/09/2012 – just to clarify, onlooker was banned from threads hosted by “kairosfocus” and can still post at Uncommon Descent in threads not authored by “kairosfocus”)

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1296 Yet another lie emanating from TSZ. kf has not banned anyone. I question whether kf even has the power to ban someone. Mung

Mung, "In one of many possible configurations" is a gamepiece, not a definition. It has nothing to do with clarity, and everything to do with playability. That's why I didn't respond to it. Upright BiPed

Hey UBP: Just to be clear, I despise "In one configuration of many possible configurations" as a definition of arbitrary. I think a system can be in one of many possible configurations as a result of natural law, I am just trying to think of an appropriate system. That's why I introduced thermodynamics. I'm also open to the idea that onlooker may be attempting to equivocate. The position of any particular molecule may not be determined, but the distribution of the molecules is determined. Mung

#726 A Rubiks cube as an analogy of a representation? Not bad. The arrangement of a Rubiks cube does not exist as it does as a matter of law - and neither do vast numbers of representations. But not all representations are rate-independent arrangements; our senses are all from lawful transcriptions. However all representational arrangements are arbitrary to their effects, and the cube analogy works in that scenario. Upright BiPed

I'm going to duck that last comment. Mung

Something arbitrary is something done at random, on a whim, not out of a necessity, whether, logical or physical. For example, if there are 10 ducks in the lake, and I pick one at random to shoot, my choice was "arbitrary." Nothing necessitated shooting any *particular* duck. The net effect was the same no matter which duck got shot: one dead duck, nine living ducks, and a nice Sunday duck dinner. Clear? Alright. CentralScrutinizer

yeah, I'm sure his words smell good better than mine Upright BiPed

D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations.

I don't mind admitting that I've been scratching my head over this one looking for some good and relevant analogies. A Rubik's Cube perhaps? There are many possible configurations, though a limited number of configurations. Is the fact that the Rubik's Cube is in one configuration of many possible configurations a good example? Maybe there is nothing at all arbitrary about the particular configuration it is in. Diffusion? Is the fact that a system can be in numerous configurations evidence of the arbitrary nature of the second law of thermodynamics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics Mung

I'm thinking that perhaps the word 'arbitrary' smelled different coming from him than it did coming from you. Perhaps the meaning of the word arbitrary is itself arbitrary, in certain contexts. Mung

You mean they grasped the meaning of arbitrary?

Actually I read R0b's article over there a few days ago and he repeatedly used the word "arbitrary". As crazy as it sounds, I didn't see anyone asking what the heck he meant by "arbitrary". Maybe thats why they needed me to explain it to 'em - so they'd know what he was talking about. yeah, thats it Upright BiPed

ok, going to give away the candy store here. You mean they grasped the meaning of arbitrary? I don't suppose onlooker was anywhere around back then, asking them to define what they meant by arbitrary. That would be too much to hope for. Yet another nail in the coffin of the "poor me, i don't understand arbitrary" bulls**t. Mung

Ah, they already played that card at TSZ: THE REPESENTATIONS ALWAYS RESULT IN THE EFFECTS!!!! THEY ARE ANYTHING BUT ARBITRARY!!!! STUPID IDOT Upright BiPed

I sure hope onlooker isn't busy re-arranging the keys on her keyboard just to put my claims to the test. Can you imagine what we're likely to see from her next? I really expected something along the following lines: But suppose your keyboard is assembled by some mechanical process, and that process determines which key will be connected to which post. Does it not follow that the arrangement of the keys on the keyboard is not arbitrary? But maybe I'm giving onlooker too much credit. Mung

My dog digs holes without a shovel- she uses the front paw full-on frontal attack the ground mechanism. And she likes that mechanism because she is smiling the (w)hole time Joe

The shovel mechanism? Is that a designed mechanism? And if we came along after Bob left, along with his shovel, we'd say natural causes is what caused that hole and look for some natural hole causing mechanism. Meanwhile, Bob is laughing his tail off. In fact, we could see a long line of hole diggers with shovels digging holes and come to Bob's hole and still say it was natural causes cause we don't see any hold digger there. Mung

Joe, if we see a construction worker digging a hole and I ask you what “mechanism” he is using to dig that hole, would you answer ” a shovel” or “Bob”?

The point would be what if we didn't see him/ her, then what? What if we didn't see anything beyond the finished product, ie the building? As I keep telling you we have enough problems trying to figure out how people who lived thousands of years ago did what they did, and what they did is within our capabilities. So again: That is what science is for. However we can say it was via some means that are obviously beyond our current capabilities. But we don’t have to know that before coming to design inference. Ya see we already know your position’s proposed mechanisms are not up to the task. So we have to move on and go with known mechanisms capable of producing dFSCI. Now what part of that don’t you understand? Please be specific. Or continue to prove that you are a coward by avoiding that... Joe

“The entire population needs evos to start providing positive evidence for their position but that ain’t happening. “

How can you possibly say that when I’ve just asked you for positive evidence for *your* position and you’ve refused to give it?

I can say that because I and others have provided plenty of evidence for our position and you chumps can't even produce a testable hypothesis for yours.

You haven’t provided a mechanism,

Your ignorance is not a refutation. Obvioulsy you don't know what a mechanism is and your position cannot provide anything beyond bald assertion for a mechanism. So until you guys start putting up perhaps you should stop your whining. Joe

Upright BiPed:

I told you upfront that “This argument was clipped from a simple blog comment written in conversational English, then numbered and presented here.”

Wikipedia:

Informal arguments are sometimes implicit. That is, the logical structure –the relationship of claims, premises, warrants, relations of implication, and conclusion –is not always spelled out and immediately visible and must sometimes be made explicit by analysis.

Mung

Nick,

Stating that your argument was amateurishly formed was an observation. Are you arguing that it actually is formally laid out, which is what you’d expect to have when presented with a challenge to determine the validity or soundness of an argument?

I told you upfront that “This argument was clipped from a simple blog comment written in conversational English, then numbered and presented here.”

If you can’t take the time to clearly indicate your premises and the logical flow from statement to statement, you can’t expect others to take the time to do that for you.

I might say the same thing. If you can’t take the time to orient yourself to the conversation, then why should I accept your criticism of the observations or the logic? Or are you simply suggesting that the only valid arguments are those that require no questions, comments, or clarifications?

Where does this appear previously in your argument? Why is it the case that the first arrangement cannot determine what the effect will be?

The roles of the representations and protocols are clearly stated in the argument. If the representation requires the protocol to establish a relationship that otherwise does not exist between the representation and the effect, then it is a lack of comprehension to ask why the representation cannot determine the effect, or why the protocol is necessary.

Since you brought up “apple” and an apple: In Old English, “aeppel” was the representation of an apple. So in what way is the representation and protocol, to use your words, irreducibly complex?

The word “apple” cannot evoke the cognitive image of a particular fruit if there is no protocol establishing that it represents the red fruit with the white center and the little black seeds. On the other hand, if that protocol exists but there is no representation “apple”, then that protocol is meaningless. Both must exist in order to transfer recorded information. The fact that the word “apple” can represent an apple, as well as the words aeppel, appel, aeble, and äpple, simply demonstrates the fact that relationship between the representation and its effect is materially arbitrary (i.e. context specific, not bound by inexorable law) requiring a protocol to establish the relationship. Upright BiPed

If you can’t take the time to clearly indicate your premises and the logical flow from statement to statement, you can’t expect others to take the time to do that for you.

And yet you don't seem to feel obligated to put everything you write into syllogisms.

... you can’t expect others to take the time to do that for you.

Sure he can. You and onlooker are the ones being entirely unreasonable here. If that's the only way you can understand an argument, to have it put into a specific form, then go about it yourself. Mung

Admins: Why isn’t there an edit function?

Some of us appreciate the constant reminder that we're human. ;) Mung

UB: Stating that your argument was amateurishly formed was an observation. Are you arguing that it actually is formally laid out, which is what you'd expect to have when presented with a challenge to determine the validity or soundness of an argument? If you can't take the time to clearly indicate your premises and the logical flow from statement to statement, you can't expect others to take the time to do that for you. Case in point:

Because the first arrngement can only evoke an effect within a system, but it cannot determine what that effect will be.

Where does this appear previously in your argument? Why is it the case that the first arrangement cannot determine what the effect will be? This is why it would be very helpful, both to you and to others, if you formalized your argument. You wouldn't have left anything out. Since you brought up "apple" and an apple: In Old English, "aeppel" was the representation of an apple. So in what way is the representation and protocol, to use your words, irreducibly complex? BioTurboNick

Onlooker, You have now doubled back upon yourself.

Onlooker: As I’ve stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim. I have been trying to get a precise definition of what you mean by “arbitrary” in order to be able to parse this, but you are remarkably resistent to providing that.

. . . . . So... I cannot give you an example in order to clarify “arbitrary”:

UB: Let’s say you take the genetic symbol C-T-A and put it in your pocket for safe keeping. And tomorrow, you will…

And I cannot get you to give me an example of your understanding in order to clarify “arbitrary”:

UB: Tell me exactly, in specific language, what you do not understand …

And at the same time, you’ll acknowledge a clarification of “arbitrary” in one post, but then forget it in the next:

UB: There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are “materially arbitrary”. Onlooker: Thank you for putting forward your own definition

. . . . So you'll accept no examples, you'll give no examples, and you'll first acknowledge then ignore the definition given. Do your demonstrated actions comport more to a person seeking an genuine understanding, or a person seeking a rhetorical position? Upright BiPed

Toronto: What is a mechanism we can use to calculate the length of an object. Joe: The mechanism is “intelligent agency”. Toronto: No, I need to know the length in some sort of units.

Nobody cares what you, an intellectual coward and strawman maker needs, toronto. The entire population needs evos to start providing positive evidence for their position but that ain't happening. Joe

You seem to think you’ve given me the answer to the question I asked but you haven’t.

Yes, I have. Just because you are too stupid to understand it does NOT mean it wasn't given. Here it is again for you to choke on: That is what science is for. However we can say it was via some means that are obviously beyond our current capabilities. But we don’t have to know that before coming to design inference. Ya see we already know your position’s proposed mechanisms are not up to the task. So we have to move on and go with known mechanisms capable of producing dFSCI. Now what part of that don't you understand? Please be specific. Joe

That onlooker refers to keiths proves that it is NOT interested in a fruitful discussion. Note to onlooker- keiths does not know how to lay out an argument. And BTW if you cannot look in a dictionary to find the definition of arbitrary that fits- ie that enables you to parse UB's statement, then you are a wste of time. Joe

Upright BiPed,

In your 658 you thanked me for a further definition of arbitrary, then turned right around and asked me about arbitrary.

To save you the effort of scrolling back up, here's what I said:

Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are "materially arbitrary".

Thank you for putting forward your own definition. This is the first I remember you using the idea of "context specific within a system". It sounds like my other proposed definition might be closer to what you are trying to express: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Is that what you mean by context specific connections? If not, could you please give an example of a context specific connection?

I clearly asked you detailed questions about the additional terms you added and requested clarification of your meaning. Please provide it.

Tell me exactly, in specific language, what you do not understand about the bolded text. If you can articulate your problem, then I can answer you.

That would be refreshing. Here is the bolded text, for easy reference:

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents.

As I've stated multiple times during this thread, I have no idea what point or points you are trying to convey with this claim. I have been trying to get a precise definition of what you mean by "arbitrary" in order to be able to parse this, but you are remarkably resistent to providing that. I am therefore asking you to rephrase this, preferably in a clear and concise format, to make it clear what you are trying to say. keiths gave an excellent example of how to lay out an argument over at TSZ. You could do worse than to emulate that. onlooker

Nick, As for my tone; consider that these are your very first words on this forum.

I’m obviously not going to be able to read through 609 comments. I will say this, however: This argument is amateurishly formed.

You then demonstrated that you carelessly mis-read the text, because the text said nothing like your reading of it. If you have questions, just ask. Upright BiPed

Nick The text you bolded tells you that there is an arrangment of matter, and an effect it evokes. It also tells you that something else (a second arrangement of matter) is required to establish the relationship between the representation and the effect. It goes nowhere near the idea that the “second arrangement is able to “evoke an effect”, but the first arrangement is not”.

The first arrangement requires a second arrangement to mediate the effect. Is that not what this point is claiming? Why, exactly, would a second arrangement of matter be necessary, if the first arrangement was sufficient to evoke the an effect?

Because the first arrngement can only evoke an effect within a system, but it cannot determine what that effect will be. It requires a second arangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and its effect. Nick, there is actually nothing difficult to understand here. When recorded information is transfrred, it is not the thing (the information is about) being transferred. It is only the form of that thing. That is what inform-ation is; the form of a thing instantiated in a material medium, which will evoke an effect within a system. To instantiate the form of a thing in a material medium requires a represenation of that form. That representation of form must be recorded into that material medium by the arrangement of the medium. This is not only an empirical reality in a material universe, it is also a logical necessity. If you grasp this essential understanding, then the entire remainder of my argument flows from it – because it has to. When I write the word "apple" on a piece of paper, the moment I finish writing the word it does not suddenly become the cognitive image of a particular fruit – it's still just a piece of paper with some markings on it (i.e. it is still just the form of a thing). For that representation to successfully result in the cognitive effect, it will require a second arrangement of matter (a material protocol) capable of causing that effect. In this case, that second arrangement of matter is a neural pattern in the brain of the person who reads the word. That material protocol must establish the relationship between the markings on the paper and their resulting effect. Try re-reading the argument with that in mind, and I will answer any questions you have. Upright BiPed

Pardon the screwed up formatting. Admins: Why isn't there an edit function? CentralScrutinizer

703, "Why, exactly, would a second arrangement of matter be necessary, if the first arrangement was sufficient to evoke the an effect?"</blockquote? It wouldn't be necessary if there was no transmitter that "expects" a receiver. And by "expect" I mean the transmitter wouldn't have any reason to possess the arrangement in the first place, if the receiver did not exist to receive it. I makes no sense to write a book if nobody is expected to read it. Books exist because the writer intends them to be read.

CentralScrutinizer

"...ignore the impressively..." "...evoke the effect?" BioTurboNick

UB:

For instance, I could very easily ask you to cut and paste my words and specifically bold the text which makes you think I said that the “second arrangement is able to “evoke an effect”, but the first arrangement is not”.

I'll ignore impressively condescending tone and humor you.

5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes.

The first arrangement requires a second arrangement to mediate the effect. Is that not what this point is claiming? Why, exactly, would a second arrangement of matter be necessary, if the first arrangement was sufficient to evoke the an effect? BioTurboNick

No one has come close to refuting UB’s thesis after 699 comments. Frankly, they have given up even trying. Better to attack the argument as being incomprehensible. BioTurboNick:

Why are you trying to prove that genome is like other information?

How many ‘types’ of information are there? Mung

Nick, if you do not find it in your better senses to accept my offer, then simply cut and paste my words and specifically bold the text which makes you think I said that the “second arrangement is able to “evoke an effect”, but the first arrangement is not”. Upright BiPed

Nick, please allow me to be more charitable to you than you have been to me thus far. I am sure you are a smart guy and all...and I am sure there are things in this world that you are good at. But I simply cannot take your comments seriously. You clearly demonstrate that you do not have the reading comprehension skills required to participate in this conversation. And I do not say this without good reason. I know you'll want to blame me for any misunderstanding you have (since that has been your lead narrative), but this is simply not the case. For instance, I could very easily ask you to cut and paste my words and specifically bold the text which makes you think I said that the "second arrangement is able to “evoke an effect”, but the first arrangement is not". I already know that you cannot do this without making yourself look silly. And that was your only first airball, the remainder of your comments go down hill from there. So I think I'll charitably refrain. If you should care to apply yourself more fully, then perhaps I will engage you after you've demonstrated the ability to form a coherent statement actually related to the argument. Upright BiPed

...yet the wider court of scientific opinion is utterly silent on the matter of ‘semiosis’.

lol. Did someone over at TSZ write this? I just got a new book yesterday on Information and Computation. Chapter 1: Cybersemiotics and the Question of Knowledge Google returns 317,000 results for semiosis. Biosemiotics returns 621,000. Try a search on Google Scholar as well. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3821216199ptv34/ Mung

I did not claim to be rebutting anything

then leave

So, will you present a more clearly-formed argument, a syllogism, so that we can discuss the contents clearly?

I'm sorry, we can't grok what you're going on about. Please put your argument in the form of a syllogism. Mung

Toronto, Don't ignore what I say and then keep asking the same thing. That is a sure sign of a belligerent little child. Joe

This argument was clipped from a simple blog comment written in conversational English, then numbered and presented here. It is the content of the argument that is at issue. You are not capable of refuting the content of the argument (or you would have done so) and your opinion of it formation will not help you in that regard. [...] If you have the ability to actually articulate with specifics (instead of assertions) as to why you cannot follow the logic (and where leaps are taken), then I will be happy to address your concerns. Until then, may I say that your attempted rebuttal is amateurishly formed. It specifically addresses not a single word, phrase, or concept in the argument, and therefore provides absolutely nothing of value.

Are you literate? I ask this seriously, because I did not claim to be rebutting anything. What I stated is that it is formed in such a way that it precludes productive discussion about the content. I requested that you form it more clearly so that we could have said discussion. If your argument is valid, you should have no problem doing that. I'd think that you'd want to make it clearer, if it's as damning and clear an argument as you seem to think. An example of the problem with the form of your argument (which is distinct from the argument you are trying to convey) comes in points 5-7. In 5, where did this idea that a second arrangement of matter is necessary come from? Why is it that this second arrangement is able to "evoke an effect", but the first arrangement is not? In 6, what is this distinction between "presence of a representation" and "arrangement"? And you claimed earlier that representations are entirely arbitrary, so why do you specify the "arbitrary component" of a representation? In 7, there is no prior logical support to the statement that "these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their material makeup". And then you introduce the idea of a "representation" and "protocol" as an irreducibly complex system, without any reason that such a system must be irreducibly complex. So, will you present a more clearly-formed argument, a syllogism, so that we can discuss the contents clearly? BioTurboNick

There is a curious implication that it’s only the TSZ regulars who suffer this malaise … yet the wider court of scientific opinion is utterly silent on the matter of ‘semiosis’.

Because they have to be, Allan. It's their jobs on the line. They have to believe that someday someone will figure out how blind and undirected chemical processes produced a living organism using only matter and energy. And that is also the point. If the teachers didn't tell the students that nature didit, they would naturally infer it was designed. IOW you cannot afford to just teach the evidence without also saying "easy stuff for a blind watchmaker with eons of time". Joe

Reciprocating Bill has informed me that he has a question he wishes for me to answer. He wants to know 'what class of thing' I think can establish a semiotic state. My answer to that question doesn't change the argument or evidence for semiosis in the genome (in any way whatsoever). And the only reason the question is being asked is to provide some grist for the mill, i.e. some intellectual balm for the burns he received by having to concede his objections to my argument were invalid. Now, he and his brothers are thirsty. They very obviously feel the need to excercise their personal incredulity in place of empirical observation. And since I have taken so much ("ID has no entailments" was Bill's favorite line against ID), I am only too happy to give a little back. However I don't want my answer to interfere with Onlooker's ability to articulate the advertised flaw within the argument. So as soon as he gets around to it, or expresses his withdrawal, I'll be happy to answer. Upright BiPed

RB:

Upright Biped, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, assert is required to create (result in, cause) the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Design, ie agency involvement.

Also, please tell us what class of mechanisms you, or semiotic theory, claim cannot create the entailments/the TRI/a semiotic state.

Necessity and chance/ blind and undirected processes.

Given your emphasis upon “material observations,” provide empirical justification of those assertions in light of your semiotic theory.

Every observation ever made. Joe

So if there is no known mechanism capable of establishing this semiotic state, where does this leave your theory?

Design, ie agency involvement, is the only known mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state.

How did your designer transfer the original information into the cell?

That is what science is for. However we can say it was via some means that are obviously beyond our current capabilities. But we don't have to know that before coming to design inference. Ya see we already know your position's proposed mechanisms are not up to the task. So we have to move on and go with known mechanisms capable of producing dFSCI. Joe

re: #688 Bill, I am putting no effort into "undecidable philosophical criticisms of molecular genetics and neo-Darwinian evolution". What I am discussing are the observed material conditions required for the transfer of recorded information. The conclusion is that the genome demonstrates a semiotic state during protein synthesis, and the origin of that system will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state. End. What is peculiar however, is that you and your ideological brothers adamantly deny what is 1) plainly discernable to anyone who can read technical data, 2) is a logical necessity which is easily accessible to any educated person, and 3) has appeared over and over again in peer-reviewed journals. The question why are you putting so much effort into denying material evidence? Upright BiPed

RB quoting Pattee:

I also believe it is counterproductive when structuralists and bio semioticians put so much of their efforts into undecidable philosophical criticisms of molecular genetics and neo-Darwinian evolution theory. In spite of unsolved problems, some overstated claims, and some errors, one should not disregard the enormous volume of empirical results, the explanatory power, and practical applications of these disciplines.

What empirical results, what explanatory power and what prctical applications are there are darwinism/ neo-darwinism? How does saying "it evolved" explain anything? How does starting with the conclusion = an empirical result? And just what practical applications can it have when all the details are missing? Strange what these guys will just believe when it appears to support their position. Joe

Onlooker? Are you able to articulate what you do not understand about the text you bolded? Upright BiPed

D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations.

What a moron.

...could you please give an example of a context specific connection?

If your computer keyboard is like mine, most of the keys are the same size and are connected to a post perhaps, call it a connector. If you were of a mind to you could pull off the various keys for each letter and re-arrange them on your keyboard (connect them to a different connector). In fact, QWERTY keyboards are just one kind of keyboard. Why are the keys arranged the way they are on a QWERTY keyboard? What determines the location on a keyboard of the 'Q' key? What determines which key must be connected to which connector? Mung

onlooker, Your attempts to redefine arbitrary don't even come close. Please consult a dictionary. Then consult a thesaurus. Possibly look at some synonyms and antonyms. Mung

Diogenes@ [525]: Meyer’s habit of firing off moronic falsehoods about it like he’s an expert, is taken down by an actual professor of information theory, Jeff Shallit, here. This requires rebuttal. Let me quote Shallit from his putative "take down" of Meyer:

I have a simple counterexample to all these claims: weather prediction. Meteorologists collect huge amounts of data from the natural world: temperature, pressure, wind speed, wind direction, etc., and process this data to produce accurate weather forecasts. So the information they collect is "specified" (in that it tells us whether to bring an umbrella in the morning), and clearly hundreds, if not thousands, of these bits of information are needed to make an accurate prediction. But these bits of information do not come from a mind - unless Meyer wants to claim that some intelligent being (let's say Zeus) is controlling the weather. Perhaps intelligent design creationism is just Greek polytheism in disguise!

This statement is sadly just filled with foolishness. Shallit wants to dispute Meyer's contention that information is produced by intelligent agents. And this is his counterexample?!? As a thought experiment, let's go to Denver, CO 2 million years ago. And let's say we're aliens from another planet. We want to know what the weather has been like over the last five years. How do we get this information? Are there any humans that exist? No. Are there any instruments for recording this information? No. Is there anything that can be used to store the information if it could be recorded in the first place? No. Etc, etc. IOW, if humans didn't exist in the first place, then this 'information' wouldn't exist either. This 'information' that Shallit seems to think exists outside of humans is no where to be found unless, and only, if humans are there to (1) build thermometers, (2) measure the temperature, and (3) record it. No humans, then no information; and we aliens would be completely out of luck. Now, with this clarity added, let's just take a look at the very language Shallit uses as he "takes down" Meyer: ". . . meteorologists collect . . . process this data . . . produce accurate forecasts. . . " The logical conclusion drawn from Shallit's example is that "meteorologists" produce "accurate weather forecasts." No humans, then no information. What has he proven here? It's just all gibberish. So, please, Diogenes, let's not for a moment think that Shallit has even laid a glove on Meyer. PaV

Your vaunted “Semiotic Argument for ID” ends not with a bang, but a whimper.

As do most arguments by ID critics here at UD. With the critics running off whimpering with their tails between their legs. Mung

BTW Alan, just the fact that you require clarification says you are too stupid or peverse to follow along. Deal with it... Joe

Alan Fox:

I think you have to question your apparent presumption that we are all too stupid or perverse to follow your logic.

Nope, that much is very obvious, ie there is no question about it. Joe

Onlooker, feel free to use one or more of these phrases to describe what you do not understand: I do not understand how... I do not understand why... etc Upright BiPed

In your 658 you thanked me for a further definition of arbitrary, then turned right around and asked me about arbitrary. Tell me exactly, in specific language, what you do not understand about the bolded text. If you can articulate your problem, then I can answer you. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

I see you running for the door.

That would be your wishful thinking misleading you.

I am not going anywhere. I’m simply giving you an opportunity to come up with something after "arbitrary".

Here is my comment 658 again, for your convenience:

Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are "materially arbitrary".

Thank you for putting forward your own definition. This is the first I remember you using the idea of "context specific within a system". It sounds like my other proposed definition might be closer to what you are trying to express: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Is that what you mean by context specific connections? If not, could you please give an example of a context specific connection?

Please restate your premise “If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers.” to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate.

Those aren’t my words, they are yours.

They come from your paragraph 3:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

(Bolding mine.) I modified your phrasing based on your agreed definitions for "representation" and "information", but explained each step in the first comment in which I did so. If you don't like my rephrasing, please provide your own for the bolded portion of your paragraph 3. I do not understand the point you are trying to make. onlooker

Onlooker, I see you running for the door. I am not going anywhere. I'm simply giving you an opportunity to come up with something after "arbitrary". Take all the time you need. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Have I not mentioned? You may opine whatever you wish in building your very own shallow rhetotical victory. I hope for you a warm time together. But you haven’t even scratched the argument in the OP.

Wow, this is an even more pathetic ending to the discussion than I expected. Your vaunted "Semiotic Argument for ID" ends not with a bang, but a whimper. If you ever decide to demonstrate some intellectual integrity and actually answer the numerous questions posed to you, do let me know. Until you do answer those questions, though, any claim that you've provided support for ID, or even stated anything coherently, is dishonest. onlooker

Nick, I had not seen your comment at 610. I will answer it now: - - - - - - - - Nick,

This argument is amateurishly formed.

This argument was clipped from a simple blog comment written in conversational English, then numbered and presented here. It is the content of the argument that is at issue. You are not capable of refuting the content of the argument (or you would have done so) and your opinion of it formation will not help you in that regard.

It is hard to follow the logic from one point to the next, and new terms are introduced and leaps are taken half-way through without obvious logical support.

If you have the ability to actually articulate with specifics (instead of assertions) as to why you cannot follow the logic (and where leaps are taken), then I will be happy to address your concerns. Until then, may I say that your attempted rebuttal is amateurishly formed. It specifically addresses not a single word, phrase, or concept in the argument, and therefore provides absolutely nothing of value. Upright BiPed

BioTurboNick:

And further, it is not clear why this particular conclusion that you reach even matters. Why are you trying to prove that genome is like other information?

How many 'types' of information are there?

You haven’t stated a clear, formal, logical argument that clearly indicates its premises and follows step by step from that to a conclusion.

prescient? Mung

I noticed on the other thread that GPuccio had an encounter with the retired physicist Mike Elzinga, and appropriate decided not to engage him. There’s not much to engage in Elzinga - as I myself came to understand when I encountered him with the argument in the OP regarding biological symbol systems. It got me thinking though, what a wonderful debate that would be. I’d love to see the eternally condescending Elzinga in a debate with someone like (retired physicist and ardent materialist) Howard Pattee, Professor Emeritus from SUNY. One guy spends his career asking difficult questions and seeking material answers, and the other represents the fossilized hatred of a ideological bigot, locked in the teeth of a culture war. A debate about the essential symbols systems in biology between Howard Pattee and Mike Elzinga:

Pattee: There are more requirements for a polymer sequence to function as a symbol besides energy degeneracy [representations] , coding rules [protocols], and the ability to fold into a specific catalyst. The entire system must be able to replicate and to persist by heritable variation and natural selection. It was only after studying the nature of hierarchical organization, von Neumann’s logic of self-replication, and the measurement problem that I began to understand the essential semiotic requirement that symbols and codes must be part of a language to allow open-ended evolution. To explain this I need to recount a brief personal history … The symbol–matter problem first arose in my thinking about the origin of life. I have to agree with Laotzu that symbols emerged from the lawful material universe at the origin of life … Before the discoveries of the genetic code and protein synthesis, physicists often viewed life as a basic challenge to natural laws, and many expressed doubt that life is reducible to physical laws. Bohr (1933), Delbrück, and Schrödinger are prominent examples of those whose thoughts on the subject are in the literature (e.g., McKaughan 2005) … In the 1960s there were two schools of thought; one school focused on the molecular structure and biochemistry of life, the other school (that should now be recognized as “biosemiotics”) focused on the informational aspects of genetic control (e.g., Beadle 1963; Kendrew 1968; Stent 1968; Delbrück 1970). I first belonged to the material school because my physics research was on x-ray microscopic and microdiffraction techniques for studying cell structure. Because the origin of life certainly requires understanding the origin of higher levels of organization, I also began to study hierarchical structures, specifically how new levels of organization are distinguished and whether higher levels of structure were objective, a descriptive convenience, or an epistemic necessity … I first publicly discussed these ideas in 1966 at Waddington’s theoretical biology symposia at the Villa Serbelloni. At the first symposium I explained the physical requirements for a symbol code (Pattee 1968). At the final Waddington symposium I emphasized that, “dependence on symbol structures and language constraints is the essence of life.” I also warned that an exclusive reductionist view of molecular biology was obscuring the fundamental symbol–matter problem. “In fact, the acceptance of the structural data of molecular biology as ‘the physical basis of life’ tends to obscure the basic question rather than illuminate it. We are taught more and more to accept the genetic instructions as nothing but ordinary molecules, and to forget the integrated constraints that endow what otherwise would be ordinary molecules with their functional symbolic properties.” … “What I would like to counteract is the oversimplification, or perhaps what is better called the evasion of the genotype–phenotype distinction. In order to have an explanation of life, this distinction cannot be treated as merely a descriptive convenience for what is popularly assumed to be the molecular basis of life. This interpretation is not the property of a single molecule, which is only a symbol vehicle, but a consequence of a coherent set of constraints with which they interact” (Pattee 1972: p. 249) … I define symbol as a material constraint not determined by physical laws that controls specific physical dynamics of a self-replicating system. My usage is consistent with other definitions of a symbol, like Peirce’s triadic symbol– interpreter–referent definition. However, all the detailed refinements of Peirce’s complicated terminologies I find empirically ambiguous and unnecessary at the cellular level. I should add that symbols are arbitrary only to the extent that they are not proximally or structurally determined by laws. However they are non-arbitrary to the extent that they have been naturally or artificially selected to satisfy functional requirements.

Elzinga: What “representations and protocols” do atoms follow when they condense into stars? What “representations and protocols” do stars follow in building up heavier elements from hydrogen and helium? What “representations and protocols” do stars follow when they go supernova and throw those new elements out onto space and generate additional heavier elements in the shock waves of the explosion? What “representations and protocols” do these elements follow when they condense into second and third generation stars and are built up into even heavier elements? What “representations and protocols” do atoms follow when they combine into compounds? What “representations and protocols” do atoms and molecules follow when condensing into solids and liquids? … Where along the chain of complexity that we see in matter in the universe does the notion of “representations and protocols” start replace the laws of physics and chemistry? Why do “representations and protocols” have to replace the laws of physics and chemistry? … Are you suggesting that “representations and protocols” somehow “make use of” the laws of physics and chemistry? How do they do that? What physical mechanism(s) is(are) involved when “representations and protocols” push atoms and molecules around or “make use of” the laws of physics and chemistry? … How does “information” push atoms and molecules around? What does semiotics have to do with any of this?

Upright BiPed

Onlooker, Have I not mentioned? You may opine whatever you wish in building your very own shallow rhetotical victory. I hope for you a warm time together. But you haven't even scratched the argument in the OP. :) Upright BiPed

*closing on 350. Changed my sentence midstream BioTurboNick

30 days and 660 comments later, and all we’ve found is a copy editor. The argument stands. :|

I saw you post this in the comments section of an Huffington Post blog. I came here to look at your argument. If you refer to my comment #610, you can see why your argument appears to stand: It "stands" much in the same way that a complex knot might remain untied. You haven't stated a clear, formal, logical argument that clearly indicates its premises and follows step by step from that to a conclusion. If you are honest in wanting to present a strong argument that would be a challenge to "Darwinists", you should have no problem reformulating it in such a manner. As it stands now, your argument consists of casually unstated premises, loose connections from one point to the next and shifting definitions. This isn't the mathematical proof of connections between prime numbers we're talking about here. When most of the closing on 330 comments (let's just assume half are from you/yours) are just trying to figure out what exactly your argument is, that strongly indicates that the problem is yours. BioTurboNick

onlooker:

30 days and 660 comments later and you still have nothing but incoherent word salad that you refuse to clarify out of fear that your position might be refuted.

That is your opinion. And your opinion means nothing here. Joe

Upright BiPed,

30 days and 660 comments later, and all we’ve found is a copy editor. The argument stands.

30 days and 660 comments later and you still have nothing but incoherent word salad that you refuse to clarify out of fear that your position might be refuted. I do note that you've demonstrated my prognostication skills quite nicely. From my comment 340:

If your previous pattern of behavior is any indication, your next steps will be to continue to avoid putting your argument at any risk of being challenged, either by refusing to engage in good faith or by running away, and then to claim victory, collecting kudos from a half-dozen ID proponents, none of whom are able to defend your argument any better than you.

So, how about you stop playing silly buggers, man up, and address my comment 658? onlooker

as to this comment: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-434220 This paper is relevant

Best Constraint On Mass of Photons, Using Observations of Super-Massive Black Holes - Sept. 2015 Excerpt: This paper details how the scientists, who work in Portugal, Italy, Japan and the U.S., found a way to use astrophysical observations to test a fundamental aspect of the Standard Model -- namely, that photons have no mass -- better than anyone before. "The test works like this: if photons had a mass, they would trigger an instability that would spin down all black holes in the universe," Berti said. "But astronomers tell us that the gigantic, super-massive black holes at galactic centers are spinning, so this instability cannot be too strong.,,, With this technique, we have succeeded in constraining the mass of the photon to unprecedented levels: the mass must be one hundred billion of billions times smaller than the present constraint on the neutrino mass, which is about two electron-volts." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120925142605.htm

bornagain77

Could you please turn your argument into a syllogism? Only syllogisms are logical Your argument is not a syllogism Therefore, your argument is not logical And we don't need any stinking observations. They just get in the way of the facts. Mung

30 days and 660 comments later, and all we've found is a copy editor. The argument stands. :| Upright BiPed

D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

This one has me scratching my head. On my desk I have a phone and a book in an arbitrary arrangement. But they are directly connected to each other by the desk, therefore, it's not an arbitrary arrangement. (According to this definition of arbitrary.) Mung

gpuccio:

Excuse me if I am a little bit tired of answering questions that derive solely from misreading what I write.

onlooker, A Case in Point Mung

Mung- Johnson is an IDist, so of course he understands the meaning of words. Notice how he somehow knew the importance of saying what definition he was using wrt "arbitrary"? ;) Joe

In the last 10 years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating according to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). - Donald E. Johnson, Programming of Life

Mung

onlooker:

I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

Perhaps you should take what he has written at face value, rather than trying to re-conceptualize everything. Has it occurred to you that your constant attempts to re-write what he has said are contributing to your confusion? No? Well, think about it. Mung

Mung:

An unbiased rational observer might think that onlooker is attempting to introduce imprecision rather than clarity.

That is the reasoning behind rephrasing... Joe

Upright BiPed,

Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are "materially arbitrary".

Thank you for putting forward your own definition. This is the first I remember you using the idea of "context specific within a system". It sounds like my other proposed definition might be closer to what you are trying to express: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Is that what you mean by context specific connections? If not, could you please give an example of a context specific connection?

Please restate your premise “If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers.” to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate.

Those aren’t my words, they are yours.

They come from your paragraph 3:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

(Bolding mine.) I modified your phrasing based on your agreed definitions for "representation" and "information", but explained each step in the first comment in which I did so. If you don't like my rephrasing, please provide your own for the bolded portion of your paragraph 3. I do not understand the point you are trying to make. onlooker

Mung, I believe onlooker cannot post in any threads started by Kairosfocus because KF has grown very tired of onlookers belligerence and will not tolerate it in his threads. Joe

onlooker, Do you understand the importance of credibility? Mung

At least onlooker has been true to ignoring my posts. I have to grant that! But what use is self-discipline unless it's in service to the truth? Mung

Maybe unable to post there has a different meaning on TSZ than it does here. But wouldn't that only support the argument you're making? Mung

Mung, I don't understand. If Onlooker was banned from posting here on 9/21, then who in the name of Onlooker posted here today? Maybe its actually Onaooker... and we just ain't hip to that program yet. :) Upright BiPed

Hey Upright BiPed, Did you know onlooker has been banned from UD as of September 21? So who are you talking to?

gpuccio addressed a comment to me at Uncommon Descent. Onlooker, a commenter now unable to post there, has expressed an interest in continuing a dialogue with gpuccio and petrushka comments:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1296 Subsequent to that post by Alan Fox, onlooker posted in the same thread and failed to set the record straight. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1296&cpage=1#comment-15880 In the true Elizabeth Liddle tradition! Skeptical Zone my a**. Skeptical of anything but the actual facts, I guess. Mung

haha. i wish i'd thought of it sooner. I should have made my lol an aoa. oh well. some opportunities come only once in a lifetime. :) Mung

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll What the FREAK is wrong with my 'A' key? Mung

lol! Mung

...sorry, couldn't resist. :| Upright BiPed

Mung,

I don't believe you.

That's because you don't recognize that your conceptions of human knowledge are an idea that would be subject to criticism. :) Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed:

They are also imprecise with regard to the thing “to which the information refers.” ... The remainder of your post simply repeats the imprecision in your rewrite.

An unbiased rational observer might think that onlooker is attempting to introduce imprecision rather than clarity.

There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are “materially arbitrary”.

You mean to say if I hit the key marked 'A' on my keyboard there's no inexorable law according to which an 'a' must appear on my computer screen? You're saying that if I take the 'L' thingy on my keyboard and swap it with the 'A' thingy on my keyboard, and then I hit the key marked ‘A’ on my keyboard again, that an 'a' may not appear on my screen? I don't believe you. Mung

Onlooker,

More progress, excellent!

The idea that the arbitrary relationship (between representation and effect) is “context specific, not an inexorable law” was first made six-hundred and twenty-one comments ago at comment #11. It was then repeated several times over the past thirty days, including being re-stated directly to you. So once again, it has been your decision to perpetuate a false narrative (that you can't understand the argument) which has created the ‘lack of progress’, to which you are now hypocritically pleased to be rid of.

I gather from this that you accept my first proposed definition of “arbitrary”:

Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism

No, not at all. Of course the representation and its effect are connected by a physical mechanism, that's what the whole point of the translation process – connecting them by a physical mechanism. The translation process allows the arbitrary component of a representation to constrain the output of a physically determined system. The point is that the connection between them requires the protocol in that system, and without it, there is no relationship between them. Since your rewrite fails to be clear on this issue, there is no justification to use it. For the sake of clarity, you should accept the fuller, more accurate definitions already given (the one you just applauded): Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism There is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are “materially arbitrary”. . . .

Please restate your premise “If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers.” to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate.

Those aren't my words, they are yours. They are also imprecise with regard to the thing “to which the information refers.” This is in contrast to the definitions already on the table, which specify that representations are arbitrary to the effects they evoke. The remainder of your post simply repeats the imprecision in your rewrite. One cannot forget that your rewrite is a tactical maneuver for the purposes of resulting in something you can argue against. As it stands now, you cannot meet the challenge presented in the OP. Upright BiPed

Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator Mung

And that's just the information storage capacity in DNA, the programming in DNA is another matter entirely:

Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors - Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?" http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf

Bill Gates, in recognizing the superiority found in Genetic Coding compared to the best computer coding we now have, has now funded research into this area:

Welcome to CoSBi - (Computational and Systems Biology) Excerpt: Biological systems are the most parallel systems ever studied and we hope to use our better understanding of how living systems handle information to design new computational paradigms, programming languages and software development environments. The net result would be the design and implementation of better applications firmly grounded on new computational, massively parallel paradigms in many different areas. (of note: this header has now gone missing from the site) http://www.cosbi.eu/index.php/component/content/article/171 Biochemical Turing Machines “Reboot” the Watchmaker Argument - Fazale Rana - July 2012 Excerpt: Researchers recognize several advantages to DNA computers.(7) One is the ability to perform a massive number of operations at the same time (in parallel) as opposed to one at a time (serially) as demanded by silicon-based computers. Secondly, DNA has the capacity to store an enormous quantity of information. One gram of DNA can house as much information as nearly 1 trillion CDs. And a third benefit is that DNA computing operates near the theoretical capacity with regard to energy efficiency. http://stevebrownetc.com/2012/07/02/biochemical-turing-machines-%E2%80%9Creboot%E2%80%9D-the-watchmaker-argument/ Scientists' 3-D View of Genes-at-Work Is Paradigm Shift in Genetics - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Highly coordinated chromosomal choreography leads genes and the sequences controlling them, which are often positioned huge distances apart on chromosomes, to these 'hot spots'. Once close together within the same transcription factory, genes get switched on (a process called transcription) at an appropriate level at the right time in a specific cell type. This is the first demonstration that genes encoding proteins with related physiological role visit the same factory. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215160649.htm

Besides parallel computer programming, man will also learn how to program "quantumly"!

Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - Elisabeth Rieper - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement between the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA - Elisabeth Rieper, Janet Anders and Vlatko Vedral - February 2011 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.4053v2.pdf

In the following article, Dr. Hameroff expands on the quantum computation aspect of Rieper, Anders and Vedral paper:

Is DNA a quantum computer? Stuart Hameroff Excerpt: DNA could function as a quantum computers with superpositions of base pair dipoles acting as qubits. Entanglement among the qubits, necessary in quantum computation is accounted for through quantum coherence in the pi stack where the quantum information is shared,,, http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/dnaquantumcomputer1.htm Quantum Computing in DNA – Stuart Hameroff Excerpt of Hypothesis: DNA utilizes quantum information and quantum computation for various functions. Superpositions of dipole states of base pairs consisting of purine (A,G) and pyrimidine (C,T) ring structures play the role of qubits, and quantum communication (coherence, entanglement, non-locality) occur in the “pi stack” region of the DNA molecule.,,, We can then consider DNA as a chain of qubits (with helical twist). Output of quantum computation would be manifest as the net electron interference pattern in the quantum state of the pi stack, regulating gene expression and other functions locally and nonlocally by radiation or entanglement. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/QuantumComputingInDNA.html

bornagain77

well let's see how their doing trying to create life in the lab:

Scientists Say Intelligent Designer Needed for Origin of Life Chemistry Excerpt: Organic chemist Dr. Charles Garner recently noted in private correspondence that "while this work helps one imagine how RNA might form, it does nothing to address the information content of RNA. So, yes, there was a lot of guidance by an intelligent chemist." Sutherland's research produced only 2 of the 4 RNA nucleobases, and Dr. Garner also explained why, as is often the case, "the basic chemistry itself also required the hand of an intelligent chemist." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/scientists_say_intelligent_des.html

Well that's not to encouraging for the atheists. Here are a few more notes for the atheists to consider in their foolish bravado to prove you don't need God for life:

Do you believe Richard Dawkins exists? Excerpt: DNA is the best information storage mechanism known to man. A single pinhead of DNA contains as much information as could be stored on 2 million two-terabyte hard drives. http://creation.com/does-dawkins-exist Information Storage in DNA by Wyss Institute - video https://vimeo.com/47615970 Quote from preceding video: "The theoretical (information) density of DNA is you could store the total world information, which is 1.8 zetabytes, at least in 2011, in about 4 grams of DNA." Sriram Kosuri PhD. - Wyss Institute Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram - Sebastian Anthony - August 17, 2012 Excerpt: A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.,,, Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri’s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA — Church’s latest book, in fact — and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram DNA Stores Data More Efficiently than Anything We've Created - Casey Luskin - August 29, 2012 Excerpt: Nothing made by humans can approach these kind of specs. Who would have thought that DNA can store data more efficiently than anything we've created. But DNA wasn't designed -- right? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/who_would_have_063701.html Harvard Scientists Write the Book on Intelligent Design—in DNA - Dr. Fazale Rana - September 10, 2012 Excerpt: One gram of DNA can hold up to 455 exabytes (one exabyte equals 10^18 bytes). In comparison, a CD-ROM holds about 700 million (7 x 10^8) bytes of data. (One gram of DNA holds the equivalent amount of data as 600 billion CD-ROMs. Assuming a typical book requires 1 megabyte of data-storage capacity, then one gram of DNA could harbor 455 trillion books.) http://www.reasons.org/articles/harvard-scientists-write-the-book-on-intelligent-design-in-dna

bornagain77

I don't understand why anyone thinks that's such a troubling question for ID. If we create life in the lab, what are they going to argue next? Mung

Do you have a “designer” capable of creating life, Joe?

Yes, the "designer" who did. Joe

What if there was no “Creator/Intelligent Designer”?

Then we wouldn't exist. Joe

Are you implying that onlooker is straining out a golfball just to swallow the earth? Mung

"What if the golf ball had no mass though?" Or perhaps, as long as we are playing 'what ifs', what if the earth were the size of a golfball?

Louie Giglio - How Great Is Our God - Part 2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfNiZrt5FjU Quote from preceding video: You could fit 262 trillion earths inside (the star of) Betelgeuse. If the Earth were a golfball that would be enough to fill up the Superdome (football stadium) with golfballs,,, 3000 times!!! When I heard that as a teenager that stumped me right there because most of my praying had been advising God, correcting God, suggesting things to God, drawing diagrams for God, reviewing things with God, counseling God. - Louie Giglio

bornagain77

Mung, In case you didn't know, this rhetorical game of semantics is a known tactic of losers. That is because all they have is to try to trip you up and confuse you as to what you are trying to convey. If they had any actual evidence, as keiths sez, they would just present it and be done with it. That is why UB said the heck with the TSZ- rhetorical games get old fast and they are intent on playing them until the cows come home. At least Alan Miller anted up his imagination. However- They can't get the required simple replicators. When they start with replicators they can't get them to evolve a new function- they just get better at the one they were designed with. So it all hinges on the rhetorical game. Joe

Toronto asks:

What if the golf ball had no mass though?

Then it wouldn't be a golf ball. Joe

onlooker:

I gather from this that you accept my first proposed definition of “arbitrary”

The word delusional comes to mind. Mung

Upright BiPed,

there is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; that such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are "materially arbitrary".

More progress, excellent! I gather from this that you accept my first proposed definition of "arbitrary": D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. That gets us to three definitions and a premise: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences D2. Information: The form of a thing. D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. P1. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Again leaving aside for now the vagueness of D2, there is at least one remaining open issue before we can progress to a full understanding of your paragraph 3: - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. Assuming your agreement with D3 as stated, I'll take a stab at formulating P2. P2. An arrangement of matter that constitutes information, as the word is used in this argument, is not connected by any direct physical mechanism to the thing to which it refers. This actually looks more like a definition than a premise. In fact, it looks like a further clarification of D2. I propose D2' for your consideration: D2'. Infomation: An arrangement of matter representing the form of a thing, unconnected by any direct physical mechanism to that thing. This allows us to eliminate P2, but it does require another definition: D4. Direct Physical Mechanism: ? Does this rule out things like the connection in the children's game Mousetrap (a Rube Goldberg instantiation) between a marble at one end and a basket dropping at the other? Every link is directly connected to the one before and after it, but the marble isn't proximate to the basket. Being an optimistic sort, I'm going to revisit your paragraph 3 before getting a response from you on this potential progress.

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

I think that all of this is covered by D2'. It simply says that your definition of information means that a representation of matter can only constitute information if it is not directly phyiscally connected to what it is information about. If this is what you mean and if you can clarify what you mean by "direct physical mechanism" then we can move on to paragraph 4! onlooker

to your first question about radio waves. I have always understood radio waves to be energy that traveled at the speed of light,,, as to another comment of yours, I have always understood light to be bent around stars solely because of the warping of space-time as the light travels past the star, i.e. it is not bent because of any considerations of mass that may be imparted to the light bornagain77

Joe you ask:

The other is what if the equation only applies in specific circumstances or even better is the same as the wall we thought we would hit by traveling the speed of sound?

Well, as was amply demonstrated by the recent neutrino finding, that didn't pan out:

Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit – June 2012 Excerpt: Scientists on Friday said that an experiment which challenged Einstein’s theory on the speed of light had been flawed and that sub-atomic particles (neutrinos) — like everything else — are indeed bound by the universe’s speed limit. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.html

i.e. Any atomic particle with 'weight', which includes neutrinos and which excludes photons, cannot go the speed of light, they (particles with 'weight') can only approach the speed of light ever so closely no matter how much energy you pour into the particle trying to accelerate it to the speed of light. Just look at CERN - The Large Hadron Collider !!!

The Large Hadron Collider Excerpt: Inside the accelerator, two beams of particles travel at close to the speed of light with very high energies before colliding with one another. The beams travel in opposite directions in separate beam pipes – two tubes kept at ultrahigh vacuum. They are guided around the accelerator ring by a strong magnetic field, achieved using superconducting electromagnets. These are built from coils of special electric cable that operates in a superconducting state, efficiently conducting electricity without resistance or loss of energy. This requires chilling the magnets to about ?271°C – a temperature colder than outer space. For this reason, much of the accelerator is connected to a distribution system of liquid helium, which cools the magnets, as well as to other supply services. Thousands of magnets of different varieties and sizes are used to direct the beams around the accelerator. These include 1232 dipole magnets of 15m length which are used to bend the beams, and 392 quadrupole magnets, each 5–7m long, to focus the beams. Just prior to collision, another type of magnet is used to "squeeze" the particles closer together to increase the chances of collisions. The particles are so tiny that the task of making them collide is akin to firing needles from two positions 10km apart with such precision that they meet halfway! http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/HowLHC-en.html

Thus Joe, for all intents and purposes, regardless of whatever impenetrable barrier may have been imagined for the the speed of sound, the speed of light is, despite all attempts to scale the wall, a impenetrable wall for any particle with 'weight' (including the nearly weightless neutrinos) bornagain77

Photons reaching us from stars will have their trajectories altered by large masses like galaxies. This observation is consistent with photons having mass.

Gravity also affects time. Does that mean time also has mass? :roll:

To get back to your “non-material” designer, just what is he made of?

I don't have one and the design inference cannot tell us if the designer(s) is (are) material or non-material. That said I say that energy is non-material. Ya see Einstein said that matter and energy are DIFFERENT manifestations of the same thing. I will stick with him. Joe

Mung, No haven't read it. I will check the local libraries. Joe

bornagain- Thanks again two things, one for clarification- radio waves- not of infinite mass even though they travel the speed of light- energy yes, mass no-> yes or no The other is what if the equation only applies in specific circumstances or even better is the same as the wall we thought we would hit by traveling the speed of sound? The specific circumstance would be accelerating an object at rest, of X mass, to the speed of light and not to objects already in motion. Joe

correction:

,,,Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we now have (many of which I have NOT listed here),,,

bornagain77

As well, as with the scientifically verified tunnel for special relativity, we also have scientific confirmation of extreme ‘tunnel curvature’, within space-time, to a eternal ‘event horizon’ at black holes. Here is a visual representation of that curvature:

Space-Time of a Black hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8

But to continue on with the main topic,,, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time (as quantum teleportation is), i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of quantum information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ (in quantum teleportaion experiments) is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we now have (many of which I have listed here); transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).

"An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane Kramarik - Child Prodigy -

Logic also dictates 'a decision' must have been made, by the 'transcendent, eternal, infinite information' from the primary timeless (eternal) reality 'It' inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information is the primary reality of our reality and is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse. verse and music:

Psalm 115:2-3 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. Evanescence - The Other Side (Lyric Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiIvtRg7-Lc

bornagain77

Thus Joe, if you will allow me to use 'weight of mass' in a fairly generic sense to reflect the infinity present in the equation that I showed earlier, this is what I have pieced together thus far, in my very limited ability, for the structure of reality:, ,,,Save for 'quantum information', they are correct in their 'like everything else' statement they make in this following article.

Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit - June 2012 Excerpt: Scientists on Friday said that an experiment which challenged Einstein's theory on the speed of light had been flawed and that sub-atomic particles (neutrinos) -- like everything else -- are indeed bound by the universe's speed limit. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.html

The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight.

Special Relativity - Time Dilation and Length Contraction - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY

Of note; the following recent study, with a fairly ingenious thought experiment, cleared up some loose ends in relativity concerning time's relation to space. Loose ends that have been ample fodder for much of the science fiction of time travel:

Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space - April 2012 Excerpt: “Time dilatation simply means that, in a faster inertial system, the velocity of change slows down and this is valid for all observers.,, Our research confirms Gödel's vision: time is not a physical dimension of space through which one could travel into the past or future.” http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

Moreover time, as least as far as we think we understand time, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole 'time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light' concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same 'thought experiment' that gave Einstein his breakthrough insights into e=mc2.

Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/

,,,Yet, even though light has this 'eternal' attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, is concerned.

Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182

That is to say, traveling at the speed of light will only get us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, 'past and future folding into now', framework of time. This higher dimension, 'eternal', inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not 'frozen within time' yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light.

"I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12

Though there are many confirmations of time dilation,,,

Experimental confirmation of Time Dilation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation

,,, this following confirmation of time dilation is my favorite since they have actually caught time dilation on film (of note light travels approx. 1 foot in a nanosecond (billionth of a second) whilst the camera takes a trillion pictures a second)

Amazing --- light filmed at 1,000,000,000,000 Frames/Second! - video (so fast that at 9:00 Minute mark of video the time dilation effect of relativity is caught on film) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoHeWgLvlXI

It is also very interesting to note that we have two very different ‘eternities of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments. One 'eternity' for being deeper in a gravitation well and another 'eternity' for accelerating towards the speed of light:

Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein's theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. --In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.--In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

As well, it is interesting to note the optical effect, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light (of note: the following video was made by two Physics Professors from the University of Australia using a supercomputer):

Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

bornagain77

Hey Joe, have you read: The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality Mung

OK radio waves travel at the speed of light but because they have 0 resting mass they do not grow to infinite mass- radio waves are not objects. But they do contain energy. bornagain- yes I am remembering about relativistic mass Thanks again- much appreciated. Joe

well Joe the issues surrounding this question of 'mass' become quite complicated when discussing relativity as this following site illustrates:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1686/why-does-the-mass-of-an-object-increase-when-its-speed-approaches-that-of-light

none-the-less, If you look on the site I listed, There you will see a equation that has the ubiquitous constant of the speed of light (c) in the denominator, thus when velocity of a object reaches c the entire denominator of the equation goes to zero and thus dividing by zero gives us infinity for a answer, In which the implications are not easy to fish out with the terms rest mass, relativistic mass, inertial mass all being bandied about by the geeks on the site.. bornagain77

So a car going over a bridge at 20 mph weighs less than if it went over the bridge at 55 mph? Do bridge engineers take this into account? (end sarcasm) bornagain- I thought that it was the energy required that makes the difference. IOW to get a particle with mass to accelerate to the speed of light, the energy required by the particle would make that particle infinitely massive. But perhaps they require more and more energy because they get bigger. But again this appears to be relevant only wrt the speed of light. Joe

sigh. lol.

In everyday usage the term "weight" is commonly used to mean mass, which scientifically is an entirely different concept.

In science and engineering, the weight of an object is the force on the object due to gravity....The unit of measurement for weight is that of force, which in the International System of Units (SI) is the newton.... In the 20th century, the Newtonian concepts of gravitation were challenged by relativity. Einstein's principle of equivalence put all observers, accelerating in space far from gravitating bodies, or held in place against gravitation near such a body, on the same footing. This led to an ambiguity as to what exactly is meant by the "force of gravity" and (in consequence) by weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight Mung

Objects get heavier as they accelerate.- Allan Miller They do?

Yes they do, that is why they have had to build bigger and bigger particle accelerators/colliders so as to get ever closer to the speed of light. In fact particles can never be accelerated exactly to the speed of light, but can only approach it ever so closely (99.999...%) because the weight of a particle will become infinite at the speed of light. bornagain77

Objects get heavier as they accelerate.- Allan Miller

They do? Have you actually weighed something that was moving and compared it to the weight when it is at rest? Just because you add force does not mean you add weight. F=MA Yes a moving baseball will hurt more than a stationary baseball but not because it weighs more. And yes a car with a full tank of gas will weigh more than the same car with an empty tank. That is because the fuel has mass. Joe

Onlooker,

Excellent, we’re making a little progress finally

There are forty-two instances of "form of a thing" on this page. Not only does it appear in the OP, but several of those subsequent instances were in comments specifically directed to you. That being the case, the only real impediment to "progress" has been your transparent need to promote the contrived narrative that the argument is beyond your ability to understand it, and that I am unwilling to clarify. Both of those positions are demonstrably false, as is your continued narrative that Reciprocating Bill was not forced to concede that his objections at TSZ were invalid. Post hoc rationalization not withstanding. As for the your remaining issue with the phrase "materially arbitrary" regarding the relationship between a representation and its effect within the system, thus far on this thread I have said:

If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing). ...and The first object is a representation; an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent). … and [regarding the word "arbitrary"] It’s not really the word I rely upon; it the material observation which has been made. Proteins aren’t constructed from nucleotides. There is no inherent physical property in the pattern of cytosine-thymine-adenine which maps to leucine. That mapping is context specific, not an inexorable law. This has been shown in the lab.

Now perhaps for an average reader, they could pick up from those comments that there is no inexorable law that connects a material representation to its material effect; that such connections are context specific within a system, hence, they are “materially arbitrary”. However, you do not seem able to grasp this distinction, so I asked you to consider an example where I would separate the representation and its effect in time, space, and their material make-up:

Let’s say you take the genetic symbol C-T-A and put it in your pocket for safe keeping. And tomorrow, you will take it out and run it through a ribosome where it will evoke its specified effect. You can now ask yourself a simple question of logic … can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing?

Yet you have steadfastly refused to enage this example, or the one given previous to it. Can a thing, separated by space, time, and material content, also be the effect it evokes within a system? The answer is “no” it cannot be the same thing. And if it is not the same thing as the effect, yet has a connection to it, then that connection must be materially arbitrary. But reaching this basic understanding is not your goal. Your goal is to keep asking questions and use it as an opportunity to to sling insults and perpetuate a dishonest narrative – which is all you've done. But your failing on this front has already been illuminated here, and nothing has changed. You need to present yourself as an interested opponent who simply cannot get a straight answer, and then to have me fear your ultimate conclusion that I am being evasive in answering you. What you cannot accomplish by evidence and argument, you will attempt to manufacture by rhetoric and deception. But, you assume too much. I am not afraid of anything you say with regard to the argument itself, nor do I fear your foregone conclusion that I am being evasive. - - - - - - - - - - - Now, Dr Liddle stated that she believes it is not even possible to transfer recorded information in a material universe without using “an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information”. Are you able to unass yourself from your rhetoric long enough to agee with her, or not? Upright BiPed

onlooker:

your prose is impenetrable

a lie onlooker:

your refusal to answer simple, direct questions speaks volumes.

another lie and the height of hypocrisy to boot. onlooker:

I am simply trying to understand your argument.

There is a substantial body of evidence now in this thread that indicates otherwise. Mung

onlooker:

You have yet to reply to my two proposed definitions of “arbitrary”:

liar He rejected them both, on numerous occasions. And he offered to help you understand why he rejected them, repeatedly. And you failed to respond, repeatedly. And you accuse him of bad faith. What a crock. Where's your integrity? Mung

to onlooker and all evos- Are you guys really unable to plug in the standard and accepted definitions of the words Upright Biped uses in order to understand what he is saying? If that is true then how do you guys communicate? It should be impossible to communicate given your lack of understanding of the words used to communicate. That said, seeing that you have the ability to communicate that demonstrates the total lack of good faith on your part pertaining UB's semiotic argument. Joe

Upright BiPed,

"information is the form of a thing" is exactly how I’ve used the term throughout the argument

Excellent, we're making a little progress finally. We now have two definitions and a premise agreed upon: D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences D2. Information: The form of a thing. P1. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Now, D2 is a bit vague, but we can see if that matters as we work through the rest of your argument. The outstanding issues that remain to get through your paragraph 3 are: - What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? Does it correspond to either of the proposed definitions I offered? - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean in that premise? You have yet to reply to my two proposed definitions of "arbitrary": D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Once we have agreement on this definition, it should be possible to work on "necessarily arbitrary" in the context of your next premise. I look forward to more progress. onlooker

I wonder if toronto ever heard of the conservation laws. Mung

If “e=mc^2?, when m=0, the product “e” becomes 0 also.

OMG! that's a violation of the ^ operator! Mung

I'm obviously not going to be able to read through 609 comments. I will say this, however: This argument is amateurishly formed. It is hard to follow the logic from one point to the next, and new terms are introduced and leaps are taken half-way through without obvious logical support. It would be helpful to all involved if you restated your argument as a list of premises and then follow each step from those premises. And further, it is not clear why this particular conclusion that you reach even matters. Why are you trying to prove that genome is like other information? BioTurboNick

toronto replies:

I’m not sure what you mean here. If “e=mc^2?, when m=0, the product “e” becomes 0 also. Are you saying, that in this material world we occupy, we can have energy without mass?

Go weigh radio waves and tell me how much mass you have. The equation means if you have x amount of energy that = y amount of mass and if you have y amount of mass then x is the amount of energy that mass is equal to. It is an apples (energy) to organges (mass) converter Joe

By the way, Onlooker, The owner of The SkepticalZone, Dr. Elizabeth Liddle was asked by me "if was even possible" to transfer recorded information in a material universe without using "an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information". Her answer was a direct "No" I agree with her. Do you? Upright BiPed

#598 See above Upright BiPed

Now Allan Miller thinks that codons represent amino acids is juts a metaphor. Only a moron would say something like that. The whole biological world uses codons represent amino acids because they do, Allan. It isn't a metaphor, it is reality.

A gene for dark colouration does not represent dark colouration

Nice bait-n-switch, a very cowardly thing to do.

there is a causal relationship between a codon and an acid in a peptide,

What causal relationship is that? Please be specific. I, and the rest of the world, say the causal relationship is a symbolic one. You alone say otherwise. BTW Allan, energy is not material until someone takes it and converts it. Until then energy is non-material. And there aren't any known principles for the emergence of irreducible complexity- that is none beyond design. Joe

#597

You failed to answer the question about why you mentioned measurement at all if it’s not important.

I was responding directly to your original question in #223: “How exactly can information be measured?”

If we can eliminate the concept of measurement, your definition of “information” goes from D2. Information: a) the form of a thing b) a measured aspect c) a measured quality d) a measured preference to D2. Information: The form of a thing.

Three things. Firstly, you now have switched to a different instance of the word “measured” The first was your use in #223, and the second was my use in giving some examples of “the form of a thing”. Secondly, my examples of the “form of a thing” include: 1) a measured aspect. 2) a quality. 3) a preference. Thirdly, “information is the form of a thing” is exactly how I’ve used the term throughout the argument. Information is the form of a thing instantiated in a material medium. I have said that in #122, #134, #223, #223, #241, #243, #252, #259, #271, etc etc. Several of those comments were specifically addressed to you.

You also failed to list all of the open issues: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

I’ve answered this question for the last time, the last time I answered this question.

What is your precise definition of “arbitrary”? Does it correspond to either of the proposed definitions I offered? - Please restate your premise “If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers.” to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does “necessarily arbitrary” mean in that premise?

I’ve given you two examples. The first of these you have yet to address. The second of these you refuse to engage. When you are prepared to engage those examples, I will re-engage this question. Upright BiPed

#596

Onlooker: Fortunately, I was browsing TSZ before I read this and found that Reciprocating Bill has already answered you:

So, you do not intend on pointing out my misuse of the word (quoted directly from the text in full), is that correct? I can imagine not, given that I used the word, then followed it with the Merriam-Webster definition, then coherently re-stated the original sentence with the definition in place of the word. And this silliness was used as a reason to not engage the content of the argument. Regarding Bill, he was saving face (and continues to do so). His contemporaneous complaints mention nothing whatsoever about nouns and verbs (for crying out loud). If you feel otherwise, you may cut and paste them. Bill sought to idiosyncratically confine the word “entailment” to the product of a thing, not allowing that it also applied to the existence of a thing (which to all rationale readers, is exactly the way I used it). This is pedantic nonsense (definition derby) promoted for the purpose of ignoring the content of the argument. Nonetheless, his position on the matter has already been addressed:

What does he say?

RB: UB, your “entailments” cannot both be a “necessary result” of and “the required material conditions” for the transfer of recorded information.

Really? There are “required material conditions” for the transfer of recorded information, which are sufficient to confirm that such a transfer took place. If such a transfer did in fact take place, then these material conditions will be found as a “necessary result” of that transfer.

To continue this line of pedantic justification is an embarrassment. But apparently that embarrassment has not done the work that it would do in most situations involving most people. So allow me again to give you Bill’s concession in its entirety:

UB: Jun 10 Bill, if a specific thing only exist under specific conditions, then does it existence entail the existence of those specific conditions? Reciprocating Bill: Jun 11 Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment.” Not a very useful entailment, however, as you must already know that a phenomenon has both necessary and sufficient conditions, and what they are, before reaching your conclusion that those conditions obtained. But, I take your point.

The first paragraph is a begrudging agreement, and the second paragraph is a positioning statement intended to minimize the effect of that agreement. But please note the third paragraph there: “I take your point”. This is an unambiguous concession by Bill that he agrees with me that the use of the word “entailment” applies equally as well to the existence of a thing, as it does to the product of a thing. He does not mention anything whatsoever about two different uses of a word. He does not mention anything whatsoever about a noun. He does not mention anything whatsoever about a verb. All of that was post hoc rationalization. Please do not ask anyone on the surface of the planet to believe that the man (who tenaciously defended his objection for over two months in front of his colleagues) then wrote a post which included the isolated paragraph “I take your point” but he really meant to say: “While I agree to the above, it has nothing to do with the way you originally mis-used the word”. Give it a rest already. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed:

The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

onlooker:

Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism.

Nope. Not even close. onlooker:

Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations.

Nope. Not even close. These attempts at re-definition can't even be taken seriously. What a joke. No way are you (onlooker) making an honest attempt at clarity. Mung

1) 2 + 3 = 6. 2) RB: No, that is not a valid use of the “+” operator.

LOL! Maybe it's not a valid use of the assignment operator. Maybe it's one of the values that isn't valid, rather than the operator. What a maroon. Even i know that 2 + 3 = 6 evaluates to 5 = 6. Nothing "invalid" about the use of the + operator. Upright BiPed, this is what you were dealing with at TSZ? I fee for you. Well, what can I say, I guess that's in the true Elizabeth Liddle tradition. And then onlooker comes over here and repeats it. Sheesh. Mung

No one has come close to refuting UB’s thesis after 600 comments. Mung

onlooker:

Here are the two potential definitions of “arbitrary” that I’ve extracted from what you’ve written in this thread

Does either of them include what Upright BiPed actually wrote? Mung

What was that definition of insanity? Copy and pasting the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Mung

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker: What does “necessarily arbitrary” mean in that premise?

The answer first given 454 comments ago:

The word "arbitrary" is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word "apple" written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

You are again repeating without clarifying. In response to that statement I offered two potential definitions of "arbitrary" as used in your argument: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Are either of these what you mean? If not, please provide a clear and precise definition. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker: The outstanding questions and issues are: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

The answer given to you 370 comments ago:

A measured content of information is of no consequence here, only the material conditions of the transfer.

You failed to answer the question about why you mentioned measurement at all if it's not important. If we can eliminate the concept of measurement, your definition of "information" goes from D2. Information: a) the form of a thing b) a measured aspect c) a measured quality d) a measured preference to D2. Information: The form of a thing. Is this how you use the word in your argument? If not, please provide a clear and precise definition. You also failed to list all of the open issues: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? - What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? Does it correspond to either of the proposed definitions I offered? - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean in that premise? I look forward to your direct responses to those. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker:You used the term incorrectly in one case and Bill called you on it. You then managed to use it correctly and he recognized that. There was no “concession” and to suggest so is either delusional or dishonest.

My usage:

So here we have a series of observations regarding the physicality of recorded information which repeat themselves throughout every form – no matter whether that information is bound to humans, or human intelligence, or other living things, or non-living machines. There is a list of physical entailments of recorded information that can therefore be generalized and compiled without regard to the source of the information. In other words, the list is only about the physical entailments of the information, not its source. I am using the word “entailment” in the standard sense – to impose as a necessary result (Merriam-Webster). These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer. Point out my misuse of the word “entailment”.

Fortunately, I was browsing TSZ before I read this and found that Reciprocating Bill has already answered you:

OK. First, you claim to have presented a definition of the noun "entailment," but instead reproduce a definition of the verb “to entail.” Statements imply or entail. That which is entailed is an "entailment." So much for philosophy by dictionary. Second, you once again conflate cause and result. You state, "These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer" (my emphasis). But you elsewhere (at the moment of your great victory) also claim that "the physical entailments" are necessary and sufficient material conditions for the existence of recorded information.* But your entailments cannot arise both as a result of of the existence of recorded information and be the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of recorded information. So the above again exemplifies your muddled understanding of entailment, which I identified in my first post. *As an additional loop in the confusion you claim that to be "a necessary and sufficient material condition" of a phenomenon is not to be a necessary and sufficient cause of that phenomenon. The muddle deepens. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-433991

I don't intend to keep copying and pasting from TSZ when you're quite able to post over there yourself, but I'm a giving kind of person and thought I'd save you the trouble this time. onlooker

Onlooker: What does “necessarily arbitrary” mean in that premise?

The answer first given 454 comments ago:

The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

And the first attempt 252 comments ago to engage you in an addiotnal example:

Let’s say you take the genetic symbol C-T-A and put it in your pocket for safe keeping. And tomorrow, you will take it out and run it through a ribosome where it will evoke its specified effect. You can now ask yourself a simple question of logic … can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing?

You have yet to answer. Upright BiPed

Onlooker: The outstanding questions and issues are: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

The answer given to you 370 comments ago:

A measured content of information is of no consequence here, only the material conditions of the transfer.

Upright BiPed

Onlooker:You used the term incorrectly in one case and Bill called you on it. You then managed to use it correctly and he recognized that. There was no “concession” and to suggest so is either delusional or dishonest.

My usage:

So here we have a series of observations regarding the physicality of recorded information which repeat themselves throughout every form – no matter whether that information is bound to humans, or human intelligence, or other living things, or non-living machines. There is a list of physical entailments of recorded information that can therefore be generalized and compiled without regard to the source of the information. In other words, the list is only about the physical entailments of the information, not its source. I am using the word “entailment” in the standard sense – to impose as a necessary result (Merriam-Webster). These physical entailments are a necessary result of the existence of recorded information transfer.

Point out my misuse of the word "entailment". Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed,

Given the fact that you have repeatedly failed to answer direct questions about your argument here at UD and that you have a proven history of running away in another forum when confronted with such questions,

Do you mean your question about what I meant in my use of the term “arbitrary”? Does this qualify as an answer:

UB: The first object is a representation; an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

Repeating the words that I've already asked you to clarify does not count as an answer, no. Here are the two potential definitions of "arbitrary" that I've extracted from what you've written in this thread: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. Are either of these accurate? If not, please provide a clear and precise definition.

As far as leaving TSZ, I spent two months there in open debate with Reciprocating Bill, who lodged two very specific objections. In one instance he objected to my use of the term "entailment". He eventually conceded that if a thing existed (which has unique material conditions), then its very existence would ‘entail’ that those conditions existed as well.

That is not an accurate statement of what happened. You used the term incorrectly in one case and Bill called you on it. You then managed to use it correctly and he recognized that. There was no "concession" and to suggest so is either delusional or dishonest. Toronto has provided an excellent analogy for what happened:

Upright BiPed: "RB took the intellectual lead at TSZ and denied any need to engage the evidence because there was a supposed logical flaw in the argument. It took two months for him to concede otherwise."

It is incredible to me that UB still thinks onlookers believe this! Let me demonstrate. 1) UB: 2 + 3 = 6. 2) RB: No, that is not a valid use of the “+” operator. 3) UB: Does 5 + 5 = 10? 4) RB: Yes, that is a valid use of the “+” operator. 5) UB: AHAAA! You concede that 1) is valid! Do you see where you went wrong UB?

As far as your interaction with keiths goes, you've got that wrong as well.

Keith: Answer me! UB: You added extraneous items to your reformulation. Keith: Answer me! UB: You added extraneous items to your reformulation. (repeat ad nauseum)

No thanks.

What keiths asked of you was:

If you think this is an accurate summary, then tell us. If you don’t, then please make corrections while maintaining the explicit and concise format of the summary.

You refused to do that, leading to the inescapable conclusion that you are not really interested in making your argument understandable. So, given that you have a history that includes squirming in response to Lizzie's questions here until it became apparent that you would not operationalize your definitions, running away from the discussion at The Skeptical Zone when the participants there were finally able to understand enough of your nearly impenetrable prose to ask direct questions highlighting the flaws in your argument, and using evasive rhetorical tactics to avoid answering my questions here, any objective observer would understand that I'd like a firm commitment from you to engage in good faith before asking anyone else to go to the effort of attempting to decipher your points.

That’s why I ask “On what grounds do you refuse to answer”. So… Let us try one more time:

…can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing?

Why do you continue to refuse to answer a question so obvious that even a small child could answer it with ease?

Here again you demonstrate your evasiveness and refusal to engage in good faith. The actual current status of this discussion is that we have three less than precise definitions and two premises, one of which is nearly incoherent, and we haven't progressed past your third paragraph. D1. Representation: An arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. Examples include: Written text Spoken words Pheromones Animal gestures Codes Sensory input Intracellular messengers Nucleotide sequences D2. Information: a) the form of a thing b) a measured aspect c) a measured quality d) a measured preference D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. P1'''. It is not logically possible to transfer information without using an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system. P2. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. The outstanding questions and issues are: - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? - What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? Does it correspond to either of the proposed definitions I offered? - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean in that premise? If you are genuinely interested in making your argument understandable, you will directly answer these questions. If you are still more afraid of having your position challenged than you are interested in the truth, you will continue to attempt to evade answering directly. onlooker

Ever hear of telekinesis, ie thought energy?

Joe, And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Mung

And BTW information is STILL neither matter nor energy- ie non-material. Yet we seem to be able to do quite a bit with it. Joe

Toronto- your strawman arguments prove that you are clueless:

If your designer was “immaterial”, he had no “mass” and therefore, no “energy”.

NON_material, and energy is non-material. But that is moot as the designer would use the matter and energy in this material universe. Ever hear of telekinesis, ie thought energy? Joe

And more desperation: “A non-material designer can manipulate matter using energy- just as I said. “ toronto:

Onlookers would like to know why you don’t have an answer to *how*?

Onlookers would need to tell me how that is even relevant- we don't have to know how designers did it BEFORE we can determine they did. Obvioulsy evos have no clue how science operates. We don't know how the Coarl castle was built, does that mean naturedidit- heck it is all coral and nature makes coral. Joe

#305

The truth of the matter is rather obvious. You won’t answer this simple question because for you to openly admit that nothing exist between these two items except for a relationship, is to give away your ideological farm. The entire remainder of my argument necessarily follows from this simple observation, so consequently, you must not allow it.

Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed;

Do you mean your question about what I meant in my use of the term “arbitrary”?

Obviously not. Because that would mean onlooker is leveling false accusations. onlooker:

I’ve provided two possible definitions of “arbitrary” as used in your argument above. Do either of these correspond to your intended meaning? If not, please provide a clear and precise definition.

oops. And then you (UBP) even went further and tried to clarify using an example. Yet anther accepted practice. Which onlooker then proceeded to ignore while loudly complaining that you are avoiding the question. Mung

onlooker, Asking question in order to encourage understanding is an accepted practice. Why do you think you're the only one who is permitted to engage in the practice and that anyone else who does so is being evasive? Mung

The DNA codons representing each amino acid are also listed.

haha, good one joe. Now expect them all to send an email asking the course developer to define 'representation' and accusing him/her of bad faith.

In this table, the twenty amino acids found in proteins are listed, along with the single-letter code used to represent these amino acids in protein data bases.

Then I expect them to quibble over whether the SLC is a representation.

The DNA codons representing each amino acid are also listed.

But that's obviously a different sort of representation than the SLC. But what amino acid TAA represent? Mung

Onlooker,

Given the fact that you have repeatedly failed to answer direct questions about your argument here at UD and that you have a proven history of running away in another forum when confronted with such questions,

Do you mean your question about what I meant in my use of the term “arbitrary”? Does this qualify as an answer:

UB: The first object is a representation; an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system, where the arrangement is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes. The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

As far as leaving TSZ, I spent two months there in open debate with Reciprocating Bill, who lodged two very specific objections. In one instance he objected to my use of the term “entailment”. He eventually conceded that if a thing existed (which has unique material conditions), then its very existence would ‘entail’ that those conditions existed as well.

BIPED on June 10: Bill, if a specific thing only exist under specific conditions, then does its existence entail the existence of those specific conditions? Reciprocating Bill on June 11: Yes, it does. So that would be a valid use of “entailment” … I take your point.

And in the second instance, he objected to the logic of the argument. He accomplished this by placing inappropriate logical operators in his own re-formulation of the argument, then objecting to his reformulation. He presented this as a "fatal flaw", where he immediately absolved himself from any responsibility to address the actual content of the argument. Eventually he was forced to concede that if the sufficient and necessary conditions of a thing are present, then that thing is present.

Reciprocating Bill: April 18th My remark above underscores a fatal logical non-sequitur in your reasoning and doesn’t turn on “counter examples.” Reciprocating Bill: May 8th I assert (not suggest) that you do not understand entailment, and due to your failure to grasp entailment you have constructed an argument beset with a fatal logical flaw … As for evidence for my position: recall that my position is that your argument is fatally logically flawed. Recoprocating Bill: June 10th Of course if the necessary and sufficient conditions of a phenomenon are present, then phenomenon is present – as I stated above (B is the necessary and sufficient conditions for A. Therefore B -> A.)

After Bill conceded, I left. I suppose I could have stayed and argued with Toronto, who in order to maintain his brilliant line of reasoning, proposed that by simply handing someone a book, he had “transferred information”.

Toronto: July 21 And again you attempt to define terms so they fit into your theory. If I lend you a book, I have successfully “transferred information” to you. The fact that you don’t read it is not relevant.

Or I could have stayed and had my objections ignored by Keith, who (along with you) continues promoting this farce to this very day. How interesting would that have been?

Keith: Answer me! UB: You added extraneous items to your reformulation. Keith: Answer me! UB: You added extraneous items to your reformulation. (repeat ad nauseum)

No thanks. I was there to debate Bill. We debated. He lost. - - - - - - - - Now as for my question to you: “On what grounds do you refuse to answer”… It does not go unnoticed that the answer to your question for me was already on this thread before you even got here; it remains on this thread even now, and has been copied and pasted several times. Yet your answer to my question remains completely absent. It makes your repeated accusations of me doging questions appear as the profound hypocracy that it is, does it not? That’s why I ask “On what grounds do you refuse to answer”. So... Let us try one more time:

…can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing?

Why do you continue to refuse to answer a question so obvious that even a small child could answer it with ease? Upright BiPed

We also find that the codons encode the amino acid: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encode 1 a: to convert (as a body of information) from one system of communication into another; especially: to convert (a message) into code b: to convey symbolically 2 : to specify the genetic code for Joe

And Miller misrepresents what I say- no surprise there: The codon is a REPRESENTATION of the amino acid. There isn’t any physio-chemical connection with the codon and the amino acid it represents- meaning there isn’t any physio-chemical connection that determines which codon represents which amino acid- ie it is arbitrary, yet it is maintained throughout living organisms.

what the hell are mRNA, tRNA and aaRS, do you think? They form a physico-chemical chain!

Nothing in that chain DETERMINES which codon is for which amino acid. And if teh codon is not a representation of the amino acid it codes for then what the heck do you call it- seeing that common usuage would say it is a representation? (it sure as heck isn't the amino acid yet the amino acid shows up when the codon is in the right position in the ribosome) Here ya go Allan: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/courses/27619/codon.html

The DNA codons representing each amino acid are also listed.

Evolve how? How can we test if it evolved via blind and undirected chemical processes? Can you provide a testable hypothsis for such a thing?

Evolve by independent amendment of binding sites, in tRNA, aaRS, ribosome etc.

The cowardly equivocation continues... Joe

Toronto continues its desperation with its strawman:

A “non-material” designer cannot even “touch” matter since he has no matter to “touch” with.

A non-material designer can manipulate matter using energy- just as I said. Joe

onlooker, The matter at hand is that you have been exposed as a fraud. And just because you can continue to spew your fraudulent claims that doesn't make them any less fraudulent. Why is it that the only people who have difficulty understanding Upright Biped's argument the same people who have an anti-ID agenda? Joe

Upright BiPed,

It is not at all obvious you have any grounds to be questioning the good faith of others in regards to this conversation.

Given the fact that you have repeatedly failed to answer direct questions about your argument here at UD and that you have a proven history of running away in another forum when confronted with such questions, it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to commit to working in good faith to clarify your position before asking others to go to the effort of rephrasing your prose.

You can demonstrate your good faith now by simply answering the question you avoided earlier:

This is exactly the lack of good faith on your part that I have pointed out before. If you're interested in being understood, you will directly answer questions and provide precise definitions for your terms. If you are afraid of being clear because you don't want to risk being proven wrong, you will use transparently evasive tactics like answering questions with questions, clearly hoping to lead your interlocutors down a rhetorical rathole leading as far away as possible from discussion of your argument. It's easy to see where your predilections lie.

On what grounds do you refuse to answer?

Asked and answered at least twice. Your pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Let's get back to the matter at hand. I've provided two possible definitions of "arbitrary" as used in your argument above. Do either of these correspond to your intended meaning? If not, please provide a clear and precise definition. D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. or D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. onlooker

Oops the last two quotes in 575 belong to Allan Miller Joe

Alan sez:

One strong conviction I currently hold is that UB has not presented an “argument for intelligent design”.

So what? You don't seem to understand much of anything. Ya see Alan, necessity and chance cannot account for transcription and translation- no one seems to know how to even test such a thing. So we take that and add the fact that it meets the design criteria and we reach a design inference.

A triplet that finds itself in the translational frame suddenly comes to ‘symbolise‘ an amino acid?

The codon is a REPRESENTATION of the amino acid. There isn't any physio-chemical connection with the codon and the amino acid it represents- meaning there isn't any physio-chemical connection that determines which codon represents which amino acid- ie it is arbitrary, yet it is maintained throughout living organisms. And now for some equivocation:

Because all that really matters is whether the linkage between codons and amino acids can evolve.

Evolve how? How can we test if it evolved via blind and undirected chemical processes? Can you provide a testable hypothsis for such a thing? Joe

Alan Fox chimes in with more cluelessness:

Until then, it is hard to disagree with Keith’s assessment that all you have produced so far is a classical example of an argument from personal incredulity:

As I asked before: If ID is an argument from personal incredulity, what does that make YOUR position, Alan- seeing it doesn't have any evidentiary support? I say it makes it an "argument" from your arse. Do you agree? BTW if keiiths sez something about ID it is all but guaranteed to be a misrepresentation Joe

Toronto is both daffy and goofy: Toronto:

How does “information” get transferred if one side has no matter available?

Which side doesn't have matter available? A non-material designer has all the matter in this material universe at its disposal- especially if it designed this material universe. And petrushka is so clueless it thinks that just because Lenski didn't know what mutations would occur and Intelligent Selection requires that knowedge so it fails. Joe

the whole lot of you are daffier than Goofy

Or are they are goofier than Daffy! Mung

Diogenes of yesterday, seems to have made an impression on Shapiro > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/further-thoughts-on-the-e_b_1893984.html wateron1

The desperation is reaching a fevered pitch:

Your designer is “immaterial”, and is NOT bound by physics.

Being non-material does not = NOT bound by physics in THIS MATERIAL UNIVERSE.

And that means…., he does NOT use “an instantiation of matter”, to transfer information.

1- It does NOT mean that just because YOU say so 2- YOU still don't get it- RECORD transferable information IN THIS MATERIAL UNIVERSE Keep humping those strawman arguments toronto. You alone provide ample reason why IDists should not post on TSZ. Lizzie won't be too happy with that... but don't worry the whole lot of you are daffier than Goofy Joe

The desperation is hilarious: “By reconfiguring the matter and energy in this material universe, duh. “

Then the designer “bypasses” “the laws of physics.”

Which laws and in what way are they bypassed? When humans build something they reconfigure matter and energy in this material universe. Do we also "bypass" "the laws of physics"? Talk about "just say anything". Joe

Start Codon Stop Codon Mung

1 more try to express the idea of arbitrary [although, this may have already been tried, and it's possible that the requests are being made by people who are intentionally being trolls? but I would never suspect that of anyone] the "token" (ie: string of letters) 'apple' is "arbitrary" to the fruit we call apple. If a person speaks only french, and never heard a word of english, this string of letters would be meaningless to that person. However, for that person, the string of letters 'pomme', would convey the same idea. Neither string of letters is necessary to convey the concept of the fruit apple, so they are "arbitrary" with respect to that idea es58

By reconfiguring the matter and energy in this material universe, duh. Joe

And toronto keeps shoveling the_______: That doesn’t follow. A non-material designer can/ would still use the matter and energy in this material universe to transfer non-material information in this material universe. “

He could only do that if UB is wrong.

That doesn't follow.

e.g. [non-matter(non-material designer)]—-> [matter(biological object)] *How* could a “non-material designer” do this?

By reconfiguring matter and energy, duh. Joe

and petrushka with the cowardice de jour:

Perhaps it’s time to start a fresh thread in which UPB is invited to provide a rigorous proof that a semiotic system cannot evolve from a simple replicator.

Perhaps it is time for YOU to demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes are up to the task. Or admit that you cannot and continue to provide proof that TSZ is a waste of time and bandwidth. Joe

Toronto "explains the strawman:

We have a “non-material designer”, a designer who is NOT instantiated in matter, but nevertheless, contains “information” that needs to be transferred TO matter. In order to “transfer information”, he CANNOT use matter since he is NOT composed of matter.

That doesn't follow. A non-material designer can/ would still use the matter and energy in this material universe to transfer non-material information in this material universe. 1. In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?) Nothing your strawman sez demonstrates the non-material designer RECORDED transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information. Keep humping away though- it is entertaining... Joe

toronto- Just repeating the strawman doesn't make it valid. Ya see UB has already granted that information is neither matter nor energy. toronto:

A “non-material designer” would be evidence that matter is NOT required for UB’s “transfer of recorded information”.

Please demonstrate that a non-material designer, can record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information, IN THIS MATERIAL UNIVERSE. STILL waiting... Joe

Allan Miller sez:

Three physical DNA bases are not a ‘symbolic’ representation of an amino acid. It really is that simple. In certain circumstances, a particular triplet of DNA bases may be involved in a causal molecular chain that results in a particular amino acid getting stuck on the end of a peptide chain. Equally, it may participate in regulator binding, or be edited out of mRNA, or cause nothing more than its complement to be added during DNA replication (which as a minimum all bases do, wherever they sit).

What a dolt! The argument pertains to transcription and translation in which the codon DOES represent the amino acid. What is wrong with you guys that you are forced to erect strawman after strawman in an effort to distract from the fact that your position has absolutely no evidence? Oh, never mind, I answered the question with the question... Joe

keiths chimes in with his usual nonsense about ID being an argument from incredulity, well because it is based on observations and evidence. Well keith IF that is true what does that make your position seeing it doesn't have any supporting evidence? I say it makes it an "argument" from your arse. Joe

Mr Bill chimes in with his strawman:

1. In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?)

RB: Seems to me his 1) excludes, by definition, a non-material designer, which would certainly represent and transfer information by non-material means. It follows, unless one wants to entertain an ET designer (a possibility no one takes seriously because it solves nothing), that 1) defeats the implicit 4), the conclusion that irreducible compleixity is evidence of a non-material designer.

Really Bill, it seems to you? Unfortunately you are nobody. Please demonstrate that a non-material designer, can record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information, IN THIS MATERIAL UNIVERSE. Good luck with that... Joe

One can only hope that they are staring off into a clear blue sky, which represents: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/c/crosby_stills_nash_young/clear_blue_skies.html Mung

Mung, I think you're correct. The chemistry clearly demonstrates a relatonship, and they can't have any of that. They'd be left to argue that just because it uses a relationship to transfer recorded information doesn't mean it uses a relationship to transfer recorded information. It's so much better to stare off into the distance and ponder the meaning of arbitrary. Upright BiPed

I’m hoping Keith’s and Onlooker show back up with their “revamp” of the argument at the top of the page.

If I see that I might even shut up and watch. I remember doing that in your discussion with Ms. Liddle. But what hope is there for people who believe that everything is due to mechanical necessity? Again I have to ask why "secret codes" and programs like SSH don't violate the laws of physics. Do they really not understand that is is possible to both encode/decode and encrypt/decrypt without violating any physical laws? But who, or what, determines that 'x' represents 'y'? I just can't wait for more of this 'snow' represents 'cold and wet' BS. Mung

Ah well, I don't sweat Diogenes. I'm hoping Keith's and Onlooker show back up with their "revamp" of the argument at the top of the page. pfft Upright BiPed

Diogenes: I made a complete ASS of myself at UD, but let's pretend that never happened. Is that for our benefit, or yours? Mung

Yeah, well, green is still a representation of yellow and blue. Mung

Mung at 550, You are correct. :) Upright BiPed

It appears Diogenes is having a complete meltdown over at HP as he is now attempting guilt by association on Shapiro > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/diogeneslamp0/media-genome-science_b_1881788_188302000.html wateron1

Absolutely. Apology accepted. Upright BiPed

No one has come close to refuting UB’s thesis after 549 comments. Mung

UB, I would like to apologize for flaming you in my initial posts here, in particular for my infantile insults about your intelligence. I think there are some fallacies in your logic. But you are clearly a bright person, and I apologize for asserting otherwise. Some days I've just had too much coffee, eh. You have shown a good amount of restraint here even when provoked by me, more restraint than I show, and I respect you for that. I will some up my points, more calmly this time. If you don't know symmetry breaking already, it might help to start here. To sum up, I think the origin of the genetic code would be: 1. (the first 6 or 10 amino acids) due to the preference of random anti-codons for the corresponding amino acid, as described in the paper I cited; 2. Maybe next 10 or so, constrained so that point mutations must conserve physicochemical property of the amino acid, thus preventing protein unfolding; 3. the rest, symmetry breaking. I would also hope that you try to define terms like "system", "protocol", "representation" etc. You're never going to be able to define "function"-- biochemists argue and argue about that! Biochemists will get in fistfights about defining "function", as you can see right now because of ENCODE, but they will agree on "interaction." Trust me on this. "Interaction" is safer. Avoid "function." You need to define "arbitrary" better, or, IMHO, you could try substituting the word "symmetric", which I prefer. Another possibility is to define it in terms of increased or decreased binding propensity relative to the null hypothesis (null hypothesis could be someething like: random mixture of tRNA anticodons.) That would give you a nice sliding scale from "total arbitrary" to "totally non-arbitrary." There are a lot of measures of statistical propensity. I think it would help you to try to write down an equation, that allows for gray areas, from "total arbitrary" to "totally non-arbitrary" in a sliding scale, with propensities above or below the null hypothesis; the equation should be set up so the null hypothesis yields zero. I hope you don't harbor hard feelings. I hope you find my points constructive, no matter whether we agree or not. I may or may not post here again, but when we meet again somewhere on the internet, I hope we can get along amicably, and you have a "No Flame From Diogenes" card, to be invoked at your discretion. Good luck with your hypotheses, D. Diogenes

Diogenes:

You haven’t defined “representation”, “system”, “protocol”, “arbitrary” or “function”. Ad hoc, ad hoc, ad hoc.

And your objection is self-refuting. Mung

By arbitrary, we do not mean random. We mean, “could have been otherwise” within the constraints of nature. – David L. Abel

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-433459 And yet they are STILL asking what is meant by arbitrary. More rounds of definition derby anyone? And here's the brilliant argument put forth by Diogenes: Upright BiPed has not defined every term he uses. Therefore, the term is undefined. Therefore, any usage of the term is ad hoc. Now, is it just me, or does Diogenes not understand the meaning of 'ad hoc'? Mung

Diogenes:

Natural selection is not blind. What part of the word “selection” do you not understand?

What part of the word "selection" did Darwin not understand? Mung

Diogenes:

Rain is a representation of barometric pressure, humidity, temperature, etc.

And green is a representation of yellow and blue. Mung

Diogenes, You are confused. I said evolutionism doesn't make any testable predictions and as some sort of refutation you cite creationists and IDists. And no, I am not your secretary so I will not be wasting my time copying an entire page just so that you can see for yourself that you are FoS. Joe

Diogenes:

Are you an ID proponent, or an intelligent person?

Yes.

See, I can do it too!

Not very well, though. Mung

UB: “what does it represent and to whom or what does it represent it to – and how do you know?” I still would like an answer. If a “representation” is an arrangement of matter, and if “not a representation” is an arrangement of matter, then how do you know one from the other? You have given no equations for anything. But I can give equations. Use Shannon's equation of mutual information between property X and property Y. If X has mutual information about Y, I would say it represents Y, possibly in an encoded form. A representation does not have to represent a thing "to" a person. Why does it need to represent something "to" a person? How is "representing to" mathematically defined? Shannon's equation of mutual information at least has a mathematical defintion. No ad hoc re-definition on the fly. Diogenes

Onlooker, It is not at all obvious you have any grounds to be questioning the good faith of others in regards to this conversation. You may or may not even care whether you have standing, but perhaps others do – particularly given that your bad faith participation has been documented here. You made an immense to-do about a term I used, and went on and on about it. Consequently, you were asked to participate in an example which specifically illustrates the concept. You can demonstrate your good faith now by simply answering the question you avoided earlier:

…can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing?

On what grounds do you refuse to answer? Upright BiPed

I have been operating under the apparently unsophisticated belief that for something to represent something else to a system, it required a system. I thought that when a tree fell and created a sound, those sound waves would travel to an observer, where the observer would convert those sound waves into neuro-sensory input by means of an auditory system, and that sensory input would travel to the auditory cortex where it would be translated by systematic protocols to inform the higher cognitive functions of the observer, resulting in “Hey, a tree fell”. Yet Diogenes has corrected me on this. According his intellect, which I am sure we can all agree is enormous, when a tree falls and creates a sound, you can remove the observer, the auditory system, the transfer of neuro-sensory input, the auditory complex, the translation protocols, the higher cognitive function, and even the “Hey a tree fell” – and, quite incredibly, it still represents “Hey a tree fell”. In fact, according to Diogenes, there never even had to be an observer at any point in the history of the universe, and it would still represent “Hey a tree fell”. Isn’t that brilliant? Isn’t it? Representations don’t need systems in order to represent anything.

Yes, a sound is a representation of something; whether or not it is in a “system” is irrelevant.

But even so, I am a little bit of a stickler for details. So when he brought up this groundbreaking idea, I simply asked for some substantiation. I asked if a sound is a representation of something even though there is no system for it to represent anything to, then: “what does it represent and to whom or what does it represent it to – and how do you know?” I still would like an answer. If a “representation” is an arrangement of matter, and if “not a representation” is an arrangement of matter, then how do you know one from the other? Upright BiPed

Joe: Then shut up about it because obvioulsy you don’t have a clue. Please copy in page 303. What are you hiding? Diogenes

Diogenes: Then why did creationists like Henry Morris, Carl Baugh, Clifford Burdick, Walter Lammerts, Tom Willis, Malcolm Bowden, Casey Luskin, Cornelius Hunter, etc. promote frauds or hoaxes in order to disprove evolution? Joe: Most likely to expose the fraud. Really? You mean, for example, like when Henry Morris, Baugh, Burdick etc. promoted the fake manprints (supposedly co-existing with dinosaur footprints) at Paluxy, Texas? And the Calaveras Skeleton? The Freiberg Skull? Moab Man? Humanus bauanthropus? Homo phenanthropus mirabilis? And the Coso artifact? And Kouznetsov's made-up experiments on creatine kinase that thrilled the creationist world in the 90's, with a paper that had 50+ citations from non-existent journals completely made up? How about Luskin's many hoaxes? The time he wrote about how Lucy's bones were supposedly scattered and might be from more than one species-- using a quote he said was from Johanson about Lucy at Hadar-- but in fact was from Tim White about OH-62 at Olduvai? Or when Luskin said Lucy was the most complete hominid fossil ever found-- coffee-spitting stupidity? Or the time Luskin lied about Homo habilis and said "its skull is most similar to baboons", citing a paper that did not remotely conclude that? The time he said regulatory elements are believed by scientists to be "Junk DNA"? (This would surprise the Nobel Committee that gave Jacques Monod the Nobel for discovering their essential functioning in 1965.) Or the time Luskin said the evidence was against Human chromosome 2 being a fusion of two ape chromosomes, citing papers that said the opposite-- and Carl Zimmer proved he was lying, and Luskin doubled down with more lies? Or how about the time he wrote, in order to disprove the fusion of human chromosome 2, "In most of our experience, individuals with the randomly-fused chromosome can be normal, but it is very likely that their offspring will ultimately have a genetic disease. A classic example of such is a cause of Down syndrome"? Thereby making us wonder if perhaps he had Down syndrome himself? Diogenes

diogenes:

I don’t have a copy on hand.

Then shut up about it because obvioulsy you don't have a clue. Joe

Joe: I have read page 303 and what you say isn’t there. Please provide the quote or admit that you made it up. I don't have a copy on hand. Since you do, please copy the text from page 303. Diogenes

diogenes:

Joe, ya got Dawkins, not me.

YOU are a nobody wrt to science and evolution. I also cited Coyne and I could cite more. OTOH you have nothing but denial... Joe

Evolutionism does not make any testable predictions.

Then why did creationists like Henry Morris, Carl Baugh, Clifford Burdick, Walter Lammerts, Tom Willis, Malcolm Bowden, Casey Luskin, Cornelius Hunter, etc. promote frauds or hoaxes in order to disprove evolution?

Most likely to expose the fraud. Joe

Joe, ya got Dawkins, not me. "The Blind Watchmaker" is the dumbest book title ever. Diogenes

As for Joyce and Lincoln- they designed RNAs and all that happened was what they designed could catalyze ONE bond, which means they had to feed the system other RNAs that only required one bond. Joe

Joe: Evolutionism does not make any testable predictions. Then why did creationists like Henry Morris, Carl Baugh, Clifford Burdick, Walter Lammerts, Tom Willis, Malcolm Bowden, Casey Luskin, Cornelius Hunter, etc. promote frauds or hoaxes in order to disprove evolution? If you promote fraudulent evidence or hoaxes in order to disprove evolution, you're admitting it makes testable predictions, and your authorities invented fake "evidence" to contradict it. Diogenes

Jerry Coyne says:

Instead of adopting the most parsimonious explanation—that the well-understood, blind, and materialistic process of natural selection is the real cause of “design,” with no involvement of God whatsoever—theologians now explain that gradual evolution is the most sensible way for God to have created.

Then we have:

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

and another source

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

and dawkins:

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

Joe

diogenes:

Evolution produces so many testable predictions about living organisms, that Joe must retreat to non-living matter.

Evolutionism does not make any testable predictions. But then again you don't seem to know what the theory of evolution is actually about. Joe

diogenes- I have read page 303 and what you say isn't there. Please provide the quote or admit that you made it up.

Natural selection is not blind. What part of the word “selection” do you not understand?

LoL! There isn't any selecting going on. Darwin wanted to fool people and it worked. Dawkins says natural selection is blind- read "The Blind Watchmaker"- Jerry Coyne says:

And, indeed, this is what I teach—that natural selection, and evolution in general, are material processes, blind, mindless, and purposeless.

You lose. Perhaps you want to try again. Joe

Diogenes: There is plenty of evidence that the self-replicating RNA world preceded the protein-world. Joe: Present it then. I already presented enough, but the evidence must be buried to help assuage Joe's feelings of inadequacy. And then demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce self-replicating RNA. Evolutionists don't believe in blind and undirected forces. But here, when Joe is proven to be wrong about the facts, want to retreat to non-living molecules. Evolution produces so many testable predictions about living organisms, that Joe must retreat to non-living matter. Retreat! Retreat! You concede the field of all living species to us. Fine; we've done ALL the heavy lifting for 150+ years with zero help from creationists. Diogenes

Joe According to the modern synthesis, it is. Ya see natural selection is blind and the mutations are undirected. And natural selection, a result, doesn’t do anything. Natural selection is not blind. What part of the word "selection" do you not understand? If Joe sees a store with a sign, "We have a great selection", Joe thinks, "They have a great blindness." Is it possible to find a word in English that is less blind, less random, than "selection"? Joe's playing dumb, pretending like he has zero reading comprehension. I've seen creationists play that game before. "Me no understand strange words coming from mouth." Diogenes

Joe: Please tell me the page number of Meyer’s alleged prediction pertaining to the nucleotides. Page 303. Ya see, if you would like a totting up of that prediction with some other predictions from Meyer's book, and how they were experimentally disproven by the time the book hit the bookshelves, you can see the collision where Meyer's philosophical bafflegab is crushed by experimental science, here. That source is a Christian website. But, you can call them "materialist" or "new atheist" if it helps you deal with your feelings of inadequacy. Also relevant from Meyer's book: Meyer's Prediction #3 “Future experiments will continue to show that RNA catalysts lack the capacities necessary to render the RNA-world scenario plausible.” The source above discusses related issues: At the time of writing "Signature of the Cell", Dr. Meyer correctly concluded that no RNA molecule had ever been evolved in a test tube which could do more than join two building blocks together. However, while the book was in press, Gerald Joyce and Tracey Lincoln [of Scripps] published an article in Science in which they demonstrated that evolved-RNA can take on a second function, the all-important replication activity. In just 30 hours their collection of RNA molecules had grown 100 million times bigger through a replication process carried out exclusively by evolved RNA molecules. So another dead-end pronouncement by Meyer was breached even while the book was in press. Aw, too bad, little Timmy! Anybody remember the part where Meyer insinuates that Jack Szostak, abiogenesis researcher, was a nutty crank? The same year Meyer wrote that, Szostak got the Nobel Prize. Meyer got to talk in church basements. Meyer's habit of firing off moronic falsehoods about it like he's an expert, is taken down by an actual professor of information theory, Jeff Shallit, here. Anybody remember this Meyer classic (inspired by Jonathan Wells' crank theories)? Meyer's Prediction #6 “Sophisticated imaging techniques will reveal nanomachines (turbines) in centrioles that play a role in cell division. Other evidence will show that malfunctions in the regulation of these machines are responsible for chromosomal damage.” Disproven experimentally years ago-- Wellsian garbage. The "messiah" who ordered Wells to destroy Darwinism, Sun Myung Moon, didn't live to see Wells achieve anything at all: none of the promised new cancer treatements, and no little turbine centrioles. Diogenes

toronto- give up. No matter how you phrase it your feedback STILL doesn't do anything, natural selection is still blind, still a result and still impotent. Joe

And toronto continues to make my point for me: ” So when you have a “feedback” of whatever survives to reproduce, it really isn’t saying anything.”

But you can’t just focus on the organism.

The organisms are what is surving and reproducing. So that is the feedback. The results from one generation are fed into the input of the next.

If the environment changes, what used to be positive feedback may become negative and what was negative may pay off with better survival.

True and that does not help you at all.

It is the environment that “controls” the feedback loop, not the organism.

The environment has an influence on the feedback and sometinmes, as with catastrophes, it can wipe out entire populations which wipes out all feedback. Joe

And toronto proves my point wrt natural selection: “Ya see natural selection is blind and the mutations are undirected. And natural selection, a result, doesn’t do anything. “

Joe, you need to ask kairosfocus about how feedback is used within a system. “Natural selection” works like feedback in evolution. Am attribute that helps your population survive is “positive” feedback while an attribute that prevents your population from surviving, is “negative” feedback.

I know all about feedback and anything that is good enough, according to Mayr, survives to reproduce. IOW whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce. That could be a loss of a trait as well as just a changing of a trait. It could be behaviour, which trumps waiting for the right mutation, and that means NO genetic change attributed to natural selection. Then there is cooperation which allows even the weakest to survive and reproduce. So when you have a "feedback" of whatever survives to reproduce, it really isn't saying anything. Joe

There is a way to test diogenes claim that shadows represent the people- get a crowd of people together, all wearing the same clothes, and have someone point to each shadow and identify the person it represents- the choosing party knows all the people but can only use the shadows for identification. Joe

diogenes- Please tell me the page number of Meyer's alleged prediction pertaining to the nucleotides. Joe

diogenes

Ya see, evolution is not a “blind and undirected” process.

According to the modern synthesis, it is. Ya see natural selection is blind and the mutations are undirected. And natural selection, a result, doesn't do anything.

I already cited one paper, above, about the stereochemical transition betweeen the RNA-world and the protein-world.

What RNA world?

There is plenty of evidence that the self-replicating RNA world preceded the protein-world.

Present it then. And then demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce self-replicating RNA.

A basic prediction of RNA world is that all four nucleotides should be formed spontaneously, which we’ve known is true since 2009.

Unfortunately that doesn't even help you. Joe

Upright BiPed, It just occurred to me that there is another possible definition of "arbitrary" that I can see, based loosely on what you've written thus far: D3. Arbitrary: In one configuration of many possible configurations. In your example of the word "apple" written on a piece of paper evoking a memory of an actual apple, it seems that you mean that the configuration of the whole system of markings on paper and mental state is arbitrary because a different mental state could produce a different memory for the same markings (for example, if "apple" means something else in a different language). Is this closer to your meaning? onlooker

Errata: Me: In Stephen Meyer’s risible book, he predicted it would be proven that all nucleotides could not be formed spontaneously. Meyer’s ID “predictions” were experimentally disproven by the time his book hit the bookshelves– what a maroon. Diogenes

Joe: Do you have any evidence that blind and undirected processes can produce the transcription and translation processes we observe? Ya see, evolution is not a "blind and undirected" process. I already cited one paper, above, about the stereochemical transition betweeen the RNA-world and the protein-world. There are plenty on that topic. There is plenty of evidence that the self-replicating RNA world preceded the protein-world. The core of the ribosome is RNA, with proteins stuck about the outside, like decorations. The enzymatic machinery of the ribosome is performed by RNA-- it's a ribozyme. RNA can catalyze reactions as ribozymes, regulate itself (including feedback mechanisms) via riboswitches, and it's been experimentally proven that RNA can replicate itself. A basic prediction of RNA world is that all four nucleotides should be formed spontaneously, which we've known is true since 2009. In Stephen Meyer's risible book, he predicted it would be proven that all nucleotides could be formed spontaneously. Meyer's ID "predictions" were experimentally disproven by the time his book hit the bookshelves-- what a maroon. Diogenes

@Steve, Getting owned by Shapiro was not enough punishment? I kicked Shapiro's tail-- all he could do was dribble "You're stuck in the 1970's" over and over and over. I think he's been replaced by spambot. You say Shapiro "won", so back that up. Since you understand Shapiro's "winning" argument so well, why don't you copy it here? Let's see how good is his best argument: endlessly copying and re-copying "You're stuck in the 1970's" over and over, until his nurse tells him it's time for his Geritol. Diogenes

onlooker and diogenes- Do you have any evidence that blind and undirected processes can produce the transcription and translation processes we observe? What would be the testable hypothesis for such a claim? Joe

@Mung: I sure wish Diogenes would make up her mind. Were they fixed by physical laws, or did they evolve? That's like asking: were the hydrodynamics of the shape of the dolphin, ichthyosaur, dorado tuna, etc, fixed by physical laws, or did they evolve? You have not demonstrated it is either/or, that these are non-overlapping categories. Are you an ID proponent, or an intelligent person? See, I can do it too! Diogenes

Listen closely… by my logic the material representations and protocols which allow the genetic code to function, have existed on Earth long before the appearance of mankind, and needed nothing from him. Listen closely... By your logic the material representations and protocols which allow my footprint to represent my foot, existed long before I perceived my footprint. If all mankind is exterminated tomorrow, it is still a representation of my foot. a) Representations are things that operate within a system... The question is not whether the tree makes a sound; it does that as a matter of physical necessity...The question is whether or not that sound is a representation of something if there is no system in which it operates. Yes, a sound is a representation of something; whether or not it is in a "system" is irrelevant. You did not "system" and that's deliberate. By allowing yourself to re-define "system" on the fly, you eliminate counter-examples in an ad hoc fashion. No, you do not get to re-define terms just because you're losing. You do not get to re-define "system" in an ad hoc fashion each time counter-examples are given. You will re-define "system" in an ad hoc fashion so that only the genetic code, and intelligently designed text/language, constitute "systems". All other examples which satisfy the definition "system", you will eliminate by progressively re-defining "system" on the fly in an ad hoc fashion. Your tack is once again tautology. Now listen closely. Here's a system. High pressure system, low humidity --> No rain Low pressure system, high humidity --> Rain No rain --> dry jacket. Rain --> Wet jacket Rain is a representation of barometric pressure, humidity, temperature, etc. It is fixed by physical laws and not arbitrary. Atmosphere, rain and jacket constitute a system. Representations (in the form of nucleic triplets) are materially arbitrary to the effects they evoke. No they are not. If CGA yields aspartate, you're dead. That's a heck of an effect. You still haven't defined "arbitary." Different triplets yield different amino acids because there is a material protocol instantiated in the system to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the triplets and the amino acids. You have not demonstrated "the otherwise non-existent relationship between the triplets and the amino acids." That needs to be experimentally proven. I cited a paper which experimentally disproved it. You have not defined "protocol" nor "system." Again, you want to re-define "protocol" on the fly to eliminate counter-examples. You do not get to re-define terms just because you're losing. it is the establishment of an arbitrary relationship within a physically determined system. "Arbitrary" and "system" not defined. "Arbitrary relationship" not proven experimentally, rather, already disproven experimentally. I demonstrated that evidence in the argument...What it has in common are the two arrangments of matter as described in the argument above, as well as the production of unambiguous function "Function" also not defined. More ad hoc. By allowing yourself to re-define terms on the fly, you can eliminate counter-examples in an ad hoc fashion. You don't get to re-define terms just because you're losing. and the preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation. You haven't demonstrated that *ANY* component of the genetic code is arbitrary! Decades of molecular biology prove it's not arbitrary! I got it from work by people such as Francis Crick, James Watson... No, you didn't. If they actually said that, which I doubt, they were wrong. Disproven experimentally. The nucleic triplet CTA is an identified causal structure within the process of protein synthesis, but it does not exist in that order as matter of physical law. You haven't demonstrated that experimentally, nor have you demonstrated that it's relevant. Again: experimental evidence shows that random anticodons have preferences in terms of which amino acids they bind, and the amino acids they corresponds to, in the canonical code, are those for which the anticodon has an increased propensity. I doubt Crick and Watson ever said anything against that, but if they did, they've been disproven. It ain't the 50's anymore. Nor have you demonstrated that it's relevant. Suppose the relationship were "arbitrary", which for you appears to mean "non-deterministic." So what? In physics there's a phenomenon called symmetry-breaking, which led to the discovery of the Higgs boson. Symmetric systems go to non-symmetric systems all the time. It's ubiquitous. Higgs boson, electroweak theory, magnetization, convection currents. It's everywhere. Suppose that the laws of chemistry were totally different than we know they are-- so that random anticodons did not have a preference to bind certain amino acids (which experimentally, we know is false in this universe). In your imaginary Middle Earth universe, where there is a symmetric relationship between random anticodons and amino acid binding, the symmetry could turn to non-symmetry by symmetry breaking, a well-studied phenomena. So what? Happens all the time in physics. Magnetization, electroweak theory, Higgs boson, convection currents. Why not one more broken symmetry among many? A "frozen accident", as biochemists used to say about the genetic code, before... Before we learned, experimentally, it was not an accident, as we now know. Unlike your Middle Earth fantasy world, in this universe random anti-codons were never symmetric in their binding to amino acids. You haven't defined "representation", "system", "protocol", "arbitrary" or "function". Ad hoc, ad hoc, ad hoc. Tautology, tautology. Just defining "function" is something biochemists have never agreed on. You'll redefine them all on the fly to eliminate (non-human language, non-genetic) counter-examples. You don't get to redefine terms just because you're losing. I prefer using the words "symmetric" and "non-symmetric", not "arbitrary" and "non-arbitrary", because that is physics-talk, and it is well-defined. Diogenes

Upright BiPed,

Onlooker, since you and Keith have consistently demonstrated how enamoured you are with your abilities to rewrite my argument, why don’t you get with Keith and revamp the OP argument at the top of this page, and post it here. We can all take it from there.

Will you work with us in good faith to correct any misunderstandings while maintaining the clarity that keiths typically provides? If so, I will delurk on TSZ and ask.

Got any guts?

As I pointed out to kairosfocus when he tried so unconvincingly to explain why he wouldn't participate on TSZ, it doesn't take any physical courage to look at words on a screen. Being willing to make your argument understandable and thereby risking being proven wrong does take a little intellectual courage. Are you prepared for that? onlooker

Upright BiPed, My apologies for the delay in replying. Family comes first. I hope you had a good Rosh Hashanah.

The word "arbitrary" is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word "apple" written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

Okay, in the interest of progressing the discussion, let me take a stab at a definition based on this. The need for a precise definition comes from your paragraph 3:

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

So, based on these two quotes, my first attempt is: D3. Arbitrary: Not connected by any direct physical mechanism. Is this really what you mean? It doesn't feel quite right to me because your example of a word triggering a memory does involve a physical process of observing the written word, the automatic firing of neural connections, and the retrieval of memories from a physical brain. Is your definition of "arbitrary" referring to the fact that this is a multistep process? onlooker

Apparently, Toronto, Keith, RB, et al couldn't take the heat. So looks like Diogenes is here as the big gun of TSZ. But Diogenes. Getting owned by Shapiro was not enough punishment? A glutton if not a brighter bulb. UP, I salute your tenacity and perseverance in the face of such sophistry and pedantry. Steve

Diogenes,

UB, you invited me here to give you a hiding, so it’s your sado-masochism and none of my own.

Actually I brought you here because I knew you don't think things through, and there would be no doubt you'd maintain that standard here.

What utter ad hoc nonsense. However, it is what I expected you to say. It is not necessary for someone to see a representation in order for it to be a representation.

You like to argue by simple assertion. Its the unambiguous sign of an undisciplined and inadequate position, tyically thrown together to serve a purpose other than accuracy. a) Representations are things that operate within a system. Without being able to observe a representation operating within a system, you wouldn't be able to distinguish (within any certainty) a representation from any other arrangement of matter. b) It is an anthropocentric fallacy for a human to say that a shadow on the ground is a representation of something without recognizing that he/she has placed him/herself in the system, and it is he/she that has imbued that shadow with the status of ”a representation”. This is an undeniable position; one which must be granted in the attempt to deny it. Without the observer, the blocking of light from some portion of the ground is nothing more than the state of the ground being lit, or not.

This is sort of Zen koan ooga booga, if a tree falls and no one hears it, it doesn’t make a sound. Oogity boogity. Sorry, I don’t smoke enough dope to consider that science.

Perhaps a puff could have stopped you from making such a flagrant disanalogy. The question is not whether the tree makes a sound; it does that as a matter of physical necessity (just as a shadow forms on the ground). The question is whether or not that sound is a representation of something if there is no system in which it operates. If the answer is yes, then what does it represent and to whom or what does it represent it to - and how do you know?

Is a nucleic acid triplet a representation of an amino acid? Or is it not?

Yes, in the system it operates within. And we observe it. But our observation is not what establishes the relationship between triplet and amino acid. That is established in material isolation within the system by the aaRS. It was that way long before we showed up.

By your logic, nucleic acid triplets were not representations of amino acids, until evolutionist scientists cracked the genetic code, which was predicted to be near-universal based on evolutionist assumptions.

Later...when the lights come on in your vast upstairs, I hope you'll return to this statement, where you can then marvel, as I have, at how utterly stupid it is.

By your logic, after evolutionist scientists cracked the genetic code, it abruptly became a representation and wasn’t before. Oogity boogity.

I must now sadly admit, I have entirely misjudged you. I had no idea that your ability to establish a coherent argument was so lacking, if not non-existent. Listen closely... by my logic the material representations and protocols which allow the genetic code to function, have existed on Earth long before the appearance of mankind, and needed nothing from him.

You want to say: “all representations that involve intelligence, involve intelligence.” Here you’re going to define “representation” in such a way that intelligence *MUST* be involved, then win by tautology.

Arguments have premises leading to conclusions. You cannot point to anything in the argument at the top of this page that reflects anything that you have said. Far from me asserting a tautology, you have simply asserted a ficton, and are intent on attacking it. This is a serious flaw. Why are you unable to attack the actual argument?

You expect me to take pity on you because of you’re mentally handicapped, and allow you the right to change the rules ad hoc. No, that’s tautology and the mentally handicapped have no right to it. This ain’t the Special Olympics, Timmy.

Are you certain that slinging shit at me is going to weaken my argument and make yours stronger? And what about the tone of your shit slinging? Is it that the harsher the tone, the stronger you imagine yourself?

You have no evidence that the representation involved in the genetic code has any qualities in common with representations that have been perceived by intelligences, before they’re perceived by intelligences.

Actually that is not true. I demonstrated that evidence in the argument, which you have yet to understand, much less refute. What it has in common are the two arrangments of matter as described in the argument above, as well as the production of unambiguous function and the preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation.

What ignorance of biology. The genetic code is certainly not “materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes in the system”;

Nowhere do I say that the genetic code is arbitrary to the effect it evokes in the system Can you not read? Representations (in the form of nucleic triplets) are materially arbitrary to the effects they evoke. Amino acids are not constrtucted from nucleotides. At one point only the nucleic triplets exist. At another point the amino acid chian exist. Not only are they separated in time, they never materially interact. They are necessarily arbitrary,

...different triplets yield different amino acids. That’s the opposite of arbitrary.

Different triplets yield different amino acids because there is a material protocol instantiated in the system to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the triplets and the amino acids. It is not “the opposite of arbitrary”, it is the establishment of an arbitrary relationship within a physically determined system. It is that way because it must be in order to accomplish what must be accomplished.

You don’t provide any evidence that the genetic code is “not reducible to physical law.” You got that from Stephen Meyer’s risible straight-to-the-40% off-remainder bin screed, the fake “predictions” of which were experimentally disproven by the time the book hit bookshelves!

Actually I got it from work by people such as Francis Crick, James Watson. Marshal Nirenberg, Heinrich Matthaei, Mahlon Hoagland, Paul Zamecnik, etc. As far as the genetic symbols themselves being non-reducible, that comes from people like Hubert Yockey, David Abel, Leroy Hood, Marcello Barbireri, and Howard Pattee. The nucleic triplet CTA is an identified causal structure within the process of protein synthesis, but it does not exist in that order as matter of physical law. It does not exist in that order as a matter of seeking its lowest potential energy state. If that conflicts with your beliefs, then you'll just have to get over it.

It’s not supported by any scientific evidence, and contradicted by experimentation. You just assert it. Why should I care what you just assert?

The fact that the material arrangment of CTA is a rate-independent structure is not even controversial. Do you understand that? - - - - - - - - - - - - ...it is late now very late here. I will respond to the remainder of your post tomorrow. Upright BiPed

Diogenes: Sorry, I don’t smoke enough dope to consider that science. You should try giving it up completely and then you may actually get somewhere :o) PeterJ

I sure wish Diogenes would make up her mind. Were they fixed by physical laws, or did they evolve? Mung

Diogenes:

My shadow represents me.

Tell that to the judge. Mung

I suppose that next Diogenes will tell us that he has sent his shadow to represent him both in Congress and in court. How do we know it's not his shadow representing him here at UD.

Is a nucleic acid triplet a representation of an amino acid?

If we could just shine a light on those amino acids we could use their shadows to represent them and just get rid of those silly nucleic acid triplets. You'd think evolution woulda thought of that. Mung

UB, you invited me here to give you a hiding, so it's your sado-masochism and none of my own. UB: Your shadow doesn’t represent you. Your shadow is simply the state of the ground with light either being blocked by you or not. For you shadow to “represent” you would first require someone to see it. It would require someone to know what a shadow was. What utter ad hoc nonsense. However, it is what I expected you to say. It is not necessary for someone to see a representation in order for it to be a representation. This is sort of Zen koan ooga booga, if a tree falls and no one hears it, it doesn't make a sound. Oogity boogity. Sorry, I don't smoke enough dope to consider that science. Is a nucleic acid triplet a representation of an amino acid? Or is it not? By your logic, nucleic acid triplets were not representations of amino acids, until evolutionist scientists cracked the genetic code, which was predicted to be near-universal based on evolutionist assumptions. By your logic, after evolutionist scientists cracked the genetic code, it abruptly became a representation and wasn't before. Oogity boogity. You want to say: "all representations that involve intelligence, involve intelligence." Here you're going to define "representation" in such a way that intelligence *MUST* be involved, then win by tautology. You expect me to take pity on you because of you're mentally handicapped, and allow you the right to change the rules ad hoc. No, that's tautology and the mentally handicapped have no right to it. This ain't the Special Olympics, Timmy. You have no evidence that the representation involved in the genetic code has any qualities in common with representations that have been perceived by intelligences, before they're perceived by intelligences. The nucleic triplet is the source of the constraint in protein synthesis, and it is not only materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes in the system, but is also not reducible to physical law. What ignorance of biology. The genetic code is certainly not "materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes in the system"; different triplets yield different amino acids. That's the opposite of arbitrary. You don't provide any evidence that the genetic code is "not reducible to physical law." You got that from Stephen Meyer's risible straight-to-the-40% off-remainder bin screed, the fake "predictions" of which were experimentally disproven by the time the book hit bookshelves! It's not supported by any scientific evidence, and contradicted by experimentation. You just assert it. Why should I care what you just assert? I already told you: the genetic code is fixed by molecular interactions between random tRNA anti-codons and amino acid types. Actually that fixes about half the genetic code; the other half are fixed so that point mutations in the DNA correspond (mostly) to conserved physicochemical properties in the amino acids. Imprints of the genetic code in the ribosome. D.B.F. Johnson, Lei Wang. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Apr 12. “The stereochemical hypothesis postulates that the genetic code developed from interactions between nucleotides and amino acids… We show here that anticodons are selectively enriched near their respective amino acids in the ribosome, and that such enrichment is significantly correlated with the canonical code over random codes. Ribosomal anticodon-amino acid enrichment further reveals that specific codons were reassigned during code evolution, and that the code evolved through a two-stage transition from ancient amino acids without anticodon interaction to newer additions with anticodon interaction. The ribosome thus serves as a molecular fossil, preserving biological evidence that anticodon-amino acid interactions shaped the evolution of the genetic code.” Fixed by physical laws. It is a rate-independent causal structure which must evoke a response within the system through a temporally and spatially isolated protocol... Wow, do you think writing that way-- all that hypermultipolysyllabificationizing-- fools me into thinking you know molecular biology? I know your type: no science research background at all. For that matter, you could define "rock" in such a way that a rock is not a rock, until an intelligence perceives it is as a rock, until an intelligence knows it as a rock. Rocks exist; therefore, they were made by an intelligence. That's the game you're playing. Do you have any evidence for gods or spooks that's not a word game? But, as I expected, you are attempting to define both the words "representation" and "arbitary" in ad hoc fashions, so that you can re-define each of them so that, by your definition, both "representation" and "arbitrary" must involve intelligence. Just answer one question: before evolutionist scientists cracked the genetic code, was it a representation, or wasn't it? Let the weaseling begin. Diogenes

Mung, I hasten to think that Patti and Liz are the high point, but to answer your question - no. Dio and Kwok are standard-issue ideologues from the HuffPost and elsewhere. I just wanted to see how they reacted when they have to think. Upright BiPed

So has TSZ finally sent over their best and their brightest to do intellectual battle? Or has it all been downhill ever since "MathGrrl" and Liddle? Mung

And Allan Miller still thinks his imagination is evidence:

Of course, UB’s fundamental issue is that he cannot conceive of a mechanism by which ‘disorganised molecules’ can establish ‘the symbol system’. and the ‘information processing machinery’. I can.

It's settled then- science is done via imagination, evidence be damned... Joe

...and bring John Kwok with you. Upright BiPed

Diogenes, if this little piddle is supposed to represent your demolishing of ID, I would say you failed miserably. There's no need to run off claiming you haven't the time. Now that you've made an ass of yourself, come back and take the argument at face value. You can start by reading for context. You certainly blew it the first time around. Upright BiPed

Diogenes,

My shadow represents me.

Your shadow doesn't represent you. Your shadow is simply the state of the ground with light either being blocked by you or not. For you shadow to "represent" you would first require someone to see it. It would require someone to know what a shadow was. It would require someone to know that a shadow could be cast on the ground. It would require someone to know that a shadow had a source. It would require someone to know that your body can block light, and that your body might be blocking that particular light. None of that is "in" your shadow. Moreover, when your shadow is seen, it is not then a shadow that is traveling through their optical nerve, its is a physically transcribed representation of that image that must be translated by a second arrangement of matter in their visual cortex. Your anthropocentric projection is a non-starter.

"My footprint..."

Same mistake.

Same goes for the genetic code– fixed by molecular interactions between random tRNA anti-codons and amino acid types. Fixed by physical laws.

The nucleic triplet is the source of the constraint in protein synthesis, and it is not only materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes in the system, but is also not reducible to physical law. It is a rate-independent causal structure which must evoke a response within the system through a temporally and spatially isolated protocol (which is does not and cannot physically interact with). This is not even controversial biology; people have won Nobel prizes demonstrating it.

Upright Biped invited me here to give him a hiding, it took me 45 seconds. That’s all I have time for, and all that’s needed to refute this ooga booga. You monkeys need to get over the evolution thing.

It took you 45 seconds to make two anthropocentric projections and fail a entry-level biology exam. Congratz. Upright BiPed

Ugh, ooga booga. It's like talking to witch doctors. UB: If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing). No, the arrangement need not be "necessarily arbitrary" to the thing it represents. Me and my shadow. My shadow represents me. My footprint represents my foot. My fingerprint represents my finger. Not arbitrary-- required by physical laws. Same goes for the genetic code-- fixed by molecular interactions between random tRNA anti-codons and amino acid types. Fixed by physical laws. Upright Biped invited me here to give him a hiding, it took me 45 seconds. That's all I have time for, and all that's needed to refute this ooga booga. You monkeys need to get over the evolution thing. Diogenes

By arbitrary, we do not mean random. We mean, "could have been otherwise" within the constraints of nature. - David L. Abel

To communicate a meaningful or functional message, first, we must arbitrarily assign an alphabet of usable symbols. Next, we must again arbitrarily assign meaning to letters or small groups of alphabetical characters, the equivalent of words. This is done according to arbitrarily defined rules, not constraints or laws. The rules are freely selectable, not constrained by physicodynamics. In short, symbol systems are entirely free, formal and cybernetic. Each choice of symbol represents a discrete unit of control - David L. Able, Editor, The First Gene

Does anyone have any idea why the folks over at TSZ think any of this for some reason needs to violate physical laws? Do spies violate physical laws when they come up with "secret codes"? Does SSH violate physical laws? Mung

Fidelity of information transmission in biological systems and its (non)adaptive evolution

Evolution of life is fully based on digital information transmission processes - across generations via genome replication and from the genome to the effector molecules (RNA and proteins) ... - Eugene V. Koonin, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution

Mung

I see that Alan Fox has commented on my argument. He says he's not convinced, yet he is either mistaken in his understanding, or simply ignores what is known:

Interactions between molecules involve their chemical properties; charge, conformation, level of hydrophilic and lipophilic residues etc. Nothing analogous to language goes on here. I respectfully remain unconvinced of UB’s argument from incredulity.

Firstly, the relationship between the arrangement of matter that evokes the effect within the system must be (by necessity) arbitrary to the effect it evokes. It is just that - an arbitrary relationship. A purely material connection between these two things would lock the system into determinism and its function would immediately fail. Secondly, the arrangement of that matter which evokes the effect is not reducible to physical law; it exists entirely independent of the rate and exchange of energy. And it is that non-reducible arbitrary arrangement which constrains the output and creates biofunction. So his assumptions as to the physicality of the system are simply incorrect. I suggest reading relevant materials, the Physics of Symbols by physicist Howard Pattee would be a good place to start. Upright BiPed

F/N: It seems that, a year after Dr Liddle was repeatedly and specifically corrected that the inference to design is after rejecting not one but TWO defaults, that is still being raised as an objection over at TSZ. That speaks volumes. Let's outline again, for those unable to understand a classic flowchart [even UML preserves a version of this . . .). 1: Step one, we examine an aspect of an object, phenomenon or process (in science we examine relevant aspects, it did not matter what colour they painted the pendulum bob in assessing its oscillations). 2: Observe enough to see whether we have low or high contingency, i.e. high variability on similar initial conditions. 3: Lawlike regularities lead to inference of mechanical necessity expressible in deterministic laws, like Kepler's laws of planetary motion, or the law of the simple pendulum with small swings. Or, the observation that dropped heavy objects reliably fall under g = 9.8 N/kg near earth's surface. 4: If an aspect shows high contingency, this is not reasonably explicable on such a law. 5: Thus, we have to look at the two known sources of high contingency, chance and design. For instance, a dropped die that tumbles and settles can be fair and showing a flat distribution across {1, 2, . . . 6} or it can be artfully loaded. (This example has been cited over and over for years, that it has not sunk in yet is utterly telling on closed mindedness.) 6: The presumed default on high contingency, is chance, showing itself in some typical stochastic distribution, as is say typical of the experimental scatter studied under the theory of errors in science. Dice show a flat distribution if they are fair. Wind speed often follows a Weibull distribution, and so forth. 7: Sampling theory tells us that when we observe such a distribution, we tend to reflect the bulk of the population, and that rare, special zones are unlikely to come up in a sample that is too small. This is the root of Fisherian hypothesis testing commonly used in statistical studies. (As in far tails are special rare zones so if you keep on hitting that zone, you are most likely NOT under a chance based sample. Loaded dice being a typical case in point: as you multiply the number of dice, the distribution tends to have a sharp peak in the middle and for instance, you are very unlikely to get 1,1,1, .. or all sixes etc. The flipped coin as a two sided die, is a classic studied under statistical mechanics.) 8: So, once we have a complex enough case that deeply isolates special zones, we are maximally unlikely to see such by chance. But, the likelihood of seeing such under loading or similar manipulation is a different proposition altogether. 9: WLOG, we may consider a long covered tray of 504 coins in a string with a scanner that reports the state when a button is pushed: )) -- || Tray of coins Black Box || --> 504 bit string 10: Under the chance hyp, with all but certainty, on the gamut of the solar system, we would find the coins with near 50:50 distribution H/T, in no particular order. 11: That is an all but certain expectation on the gamut of the solar system. 12: But if instead we found the first 72 ASCII characters of this post in the 504 bits, we would have strong reason to suspect IDOW as the best explanation. There is no good reason otherwise to see the highly contingent outcome in so isolated a functional state. 13: Thus, having rejected the two defaults, coins are highly contingent and chance is maximally unlikely per the relevant distribution to provide such an outcome with FSCO/I, we infer to design. 14: In short,t eh logic involved is not so difficult or dubious, it is glorified common sense, backed up by billions of examples that ground an inductive generalisation, and by the needle in the haystack analysis that shows why it is eminently reasonable. 15: What needs to be explained is not why inference to design is reasonable, on seeing FSCO/I. Instead, it is why this is so controversial, given the strength of the case. 16: The answer to that is plain: it cuts across a dominant ideology in our day, evolutionary materialism, which likes to dress itself up in the lab coat and to fly the flag of science. That, it seems, is the real problem KF kairosfocus

“Are you stupid or just dishonest? “ Tonto:

That’s a tough call.

Yes, most likely you are both stupid and dishonest. At least that is the call we can make by reading your posts... Joe

Toronto is just a clueless strawman setter:

– I give Joe his first reading lesson.

Sed the person who obvioulsy cannot read

A) You **can’t just** “count bits” for information. B) You **can’t** “count bits” for information.

When MEASURING information that is what you do, count the bits. And guess what? We were discussing MEASURING information. IOW tonto, YOU need a reading lesson and a brain to be able to decipher what you are reading. Ya see tonto, YOU don't get to change what we were discussing and then interject your strawman into that change. Are you stupid or just dishonest? Joe

And even better- Alan Fox chimes in with more evidence-free pontificating. Note to Alan Fox- WE are waiting for KeithS to explain his "summary" line for line using Upright Biped's argument in this OP as a comparison. But unfortunately KeithS has not done so. But Alan amuses by not understanding the definition of "default". He thinks the design inference is the default even though it is reached via research, observations, knowledge and experiences. Being a default means you don't do any of that but Alan is just clueless. Also Alan, any fair observer would notice that you have never presented any positive evidence that blind and undirected processes can construct the current transcription and translation process. So you can rant and rave all you want, you still have nothing to support your position. Joe

Toronto sets up yet another strawman:

* evolutionist: You can’t just “count bits” for information.

IDist: When you are measuring the amount of information you HAVE to count the number of bits. Joe

From the OP:

It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

Chapter 2 of The Ontogeny of Information by Susan Oyama is in fact titled: The Origin and Transmission of Form: The Gene as the Vehicle of Constancy Mung

Check out the title of Chapter 4 from the following book: Information: The New Language of Science 4. Counting Bits: The Scientific Measure of Information lol Mung

...and the first 1,000,000 bits in the value of Pi as calculated by our best and finest computers.

A perfect example of what I mentioned earlier. He's just told us how to compute the amount of information by counting the bits while at the same time denying it's possible to do so. LOL! Mung

kf, Point taken. God Bless Mung

From the OP:

It is not logically possible to transfer information in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

Note how Upright BiPed's argument isn't even specific to the information processing system we find within the cell, though he often refers to it when speaking of observations (e.g., Marshall Nirenberg). However, for those who doubt: Information Theory and Molecular Biology Mung

More from Shannon:

We have represented a discrete information source as a Markoff process. Can we define a quantity which will measure, in some sense, how much information is “produced” by such a process, or better, at what rate information is produced? Suppose we have a set of possible events whose probabilities of occurrence are p1,p2,...,pn. These probabilities are known but that is all we know concerning which event will occur. Can we find a measure of how much “choice” is involved in the selection of the event or of how uncertain we are of the outcome? If there is such a measure, say H(p1,p2,...,pn), it is reasonable to require of it the following properties:

Mung

Joe:

It can be when one is attempting to MEASURE it.

Or should one desire to STORE it or even TRANSMIT it (communication) as, for example, sending text across the internet. This is what kills me about these people. They USE this stuff every day, it's there staring them in the face. They have to USE the very thing they deny in order to deny that they know what it is we are talking about. And then they REFUSE to discuss that fact. Mung

As one starwman gets exposed toronto just erects another one: “Counting bits is the way to MEASURE the information. THAT is what we have been discussing-> MEASURING the information present. No one was talking abiout any “whole story”. toronto:

Alright then, let’s count the bits in “Pi is the relationship between a circle and its diameter” and the first 1,000,000 bits in the value of Pi as calculated by our best and finest computers.

What does that have to do with anything we have been discussing? Do you really think that just because you can pull something out of your arse and post it that it means something? Geesh- expose toronto and he has a hissy-fit... Joe

The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages. The system must be designed to operate for each possible selection, not just the one which will actually be chosen since this is unknown at the time of design. - Claude Shannon

Mung

When it comes to how traffic lights function at an intersection too, the argument appears irrefutable.

1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc).

In this case, red = stop, yellow = prepare to stop, green = go.

2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter.

At an intersection where vehicle traffic crosses in four directions, two sets of lights that can display these three colors are installed; one set pointing both directions along the x axis and one set pointing both directions along the y axis. While one set displays green for 45 seconds, the other set displays red. When the set displaying green changes to yellow for 3 seconds, the other continues to display red. When the set displaying yellow changes to red for 45 seconds, the set that was displaying red now displays green.

3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing).

I would say that it is self evident that lights displaying red, yellow, and green are arbitrary to and separate from vehicles which are stopped, preparing to stop, and going.

4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).

How to make lights display red, yellow, and green is reducible to physical law. That red = stop, yellow = prepare to stop, and green = go is arbitrary. Obviously. Or perhaps I should say, "Duh..."

5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes.

In a drivers license test, as an arrangement of matter that could be dubbed a wanna-be driver, go ahead and run a red light and see if you pass.

6. It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function.

Or dysfunction. Think, if all the lights got stuck on red. Or worse, on green...

7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information.

The representation of red = stop, yellow = prepare to stop, and green = go is made by the traffic lights, while the protocol has been instatiated in the gray matter of the licensed drivers' brains all the way from childhood storybooks through the licensing process itself.

8. During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function.

Likewise traffic signals produce the unambiguous function of traffic flow at an intersection.

9. From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process is determined by the physical forces of pair bonding. Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system – while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation.

This is also why drivers must be licensed! :D

10. This physical event, translation by a material protocol, as well as the transcription of a material representation, is ubiquitous in the transfer of recorded information.

"The light is red, Ethel! Hit the brakes!"

CONCLUSION: These two physical objects (the representation and protocol) along with the required preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation, and the production of unambiguous function from that arbitrary component, confirm that the transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information. It’s an arbitrary relationship instantiated in matter.

Fascinating, how the cosmos all fits together. Ain't it? jstanley01

And a clueless toronto chimes in with another strawman:

When we’re talking about “information” in the real world, “counting bits” doesn’t tell the whole story.

Counting bits is the way to MEASURE the information. THAT is what we have been discussing-> MEASURING the information present. No one was talking abiout any "whole story".

Information is NOT simply something that can be modeled by mathematics or “counted as bits”.

It can be when one is attempting to MEASURE it. Toronto should apply his skepticism to his position. Unfortunately evos are too intellectually dishonest to even attempt such a thing. Joe

PS: Those who may think it clever to play at school-yard level turnabout rhetoric games: we have a duty of care to warrant our views, and it is warrant that is the difference between opinion and knowledge. The above is well-warranted, twisting it into rhetorical pretzels simply shows willful ignorance (as is on display all along the length of this thread, on topics like, what is information and how is it measured, etc). kairosfocus

Mung, Is there an understanding that we can count, do arithmetic and other logical or mathematical operations in base 2 not just base 10? Or, that a suitably structured and contextualised string of yes-no questions [1 bit per answer!] can rapidly converge to the specific member of a set that can be structured -- especially, ordered -- in accordance with comparatives? That, this is a way to measure information? In bits? Just count 'em up . . . [E.g. seven yes/no questions suffices to specify alphanumeric characters in textual English. Strings of such are used to communicate text. Augmented with parity checks and markup characters, and we have a representation of written language such as HTML etc. This should be basic but I am wondering whether anger-fed arrogant contempt is leading to a failure to transfer background knowledge to this situation. (Let us never underestimate the stupefying power of overgrown teenager rebellion turned against God in the teeth of a more sober assessment on that subject, aka atheism. I think there is a reason why various atheism dominated circles keep on pounding away at the design theory is creationism in a cheap tuxedo slander. In a significant part, it is a coded stimulus to psychologically evoke and manipulate the judgement-warping rage at God that so plainly cripples the thinking of a lot of people who should know and do better. Certainly, that was a strong underlying problem with a lot of Marxists; who also loved to fly the flag of "science" as an ideological banner -- scientific socialism, nothing less.)] That, similarly, we can reduce any arrangement of 3-D objects to a pattern of nodes and arcs connecting them? That a wireframe representation of an object at suitably fine mesh, is a nodes-arcs view? That a functionally specific arrangement of particular components can be reduced by this means to a suitable collection of strings? Where, strings are a data structure that is like a string with beads on it, the successive beads holding information-bearing values, such as t-h-e-s-e-_-l-e-t-t-e-r-s? That D/RNA is a string structure with 4-value places? {where ASCII code uses 128 value places for alphanumeric text, each being a sub-string of seven bits, e.g A = 100 0001, a = 110 0001 (the space being for convenience in reading) But if the likes of O/L-Petrushka-KeithS-TWT-LouFCD . . . et al refuse to be docile -- teachable -- before facts and logic, such lock themselves up in a Plato's Cave world of materialist shadow shows and intoxicating smoke of burning ad hominem soaked strawmen, confused for reality. And how sweet such intoxication can feel. But, it is a species of socio-psychologically induced collective irrationality or even outright deception and lunacy. AKA groupthink. That is why in part a greater teacher than any of us warned that if the "light" in us is darkness, our darkness is deep indeed. Resemblances to the presumptions and attitudes of the "brights" are NOT coincidental. KF kairosfocus

Onlooker is either incredibly ignorant or incredibly obtuse. Either way, she's not credible. Mung

The question of units must be discussed before proceeding. It has become customary, in information theory, to consider teh information I as a dimensionless quantity (a pure number), and hence the constant K is a pure number. The most convenient unit system is based on binary digits (abbreviated "bits"). - Leon Brillouin, Science and Information Theory

Mung

If we use a logarithm to the base 2, the resulting unit of information is called the bit (a contraction of binary unit). If we use the natural logarithm, the resulting unit of information is called the nat (a contraction of natural unit). If we use a logarithm to the base 10, then the unit of information is the Hartley. It was R.V. Hartley who first suggested the use of a logarithmic measure of information (Hartley, 1928). - Norman Abramson, Information Theory and Coding

The above is from 1963! Mung

Shannon's information measures refer to entropy, conditional entropy, mutual information and conditional mutual information. They are the most important measures of information in information theory. - Raymond W. Yeung, A First Course in Information Theory

Mung

Information is the entity which makes the difference between knowing and not knowing, between being faced with a number of possibilities and between knowing the one that actually prevails. To define it quantitatively, we consider a simple case of choice between n possibilities. We hope that other cases will be reducible to this simple one or that suitable generalization of our definition will prove possible. - Amnon Katz, Principles of Statistical Mechanics: The Information Theory Approach

Mung

- How exactly can information be measured?

Try using a dipstick. Just place the pointy end in one ear and push until it comes out of the other.

- Does information, by your definition, have standard units?

Full or add a quart. You may be a little low.

- Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions?

No, not just any standard defionitions. Just the standard definitions of the word "information". That would be kind of silly having the definition of "information" corresponded with the definition of "onlooker". Joe

Hello Daniel, Again, my original comment relayed nothing more than amazement at the distinction between talking to an ideologue versus a person driven by evidence. And again, I did not identify that person because 1) I don't have his permission, and 2) I know that his name would be dragged through the mud for simply giving an honest opinion. I have no intention of being responsible for that. Anyone who feels slighted by my decision can simply ignore me. My argument is about evidence, not people. It stands on it own. Thanks. Upright BiPed

Mung @449: I don't understand your hostility. All I did was ask Upright Biped to identify the kinds of specialists he was referring to in his comments #205, 236, and 403. My first question about this was at comment #406. My second request for clarification was at comment #439. That's the extent of my questioning. Why did you find that so offensive? As I said before, I don't want to distract Upright Biped from defending his thesis, and if he doesn't want to respond to my questions, that's his privilege. I confess to being curious, and I humbly beg the pardon of you or anyone else who was offended by my curiosity. Daniel Daniel King

Onlooker, Here’s a definition better suited to your particular situation:

mung bucket n. A bucket used under a beer tap to catch foam and pour-offs. Can get very nasty over time, and can be used on demanding jerks at the bar as a source of a “special pour”.

Mung

Onlooker, since you and Keith have consistently demonstrated how enamoured you are with your abilities to rewrite my argument, why don't you get with Keith and revamp the OP argument at the top of this page, and post it here. We can all take it from there. Got any guts? Upright BiPed

From #305

The truth of the matter is rather obvious. You won’t answer this simple question because for you to openly admit that nothing exist between these two items except for a relationship, is to give away your ideological farm. The entire remainder of my argument necessarily follows from this simple observation, so consequently, you must not allow it.

Upright BiPed

Onlooker, please see the following: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/science/on-seeing-credibly-knowing-about-the-invisible-in-science/#comment-433265 Mung

Onlooker, ...quoting Keith:

"I’ve asked Upright at least a half a dozen times: If you believe my summary is accurate, then tell us."

I did. And you never responded (as evidenced by the fact that Onlooker did not, and cannot, post a link to your response). You purposefully added issues to my argument that do not appear in it, and when I brought those directly to your attention, you did nothing whatsoever to correct yourself. I am not obligated any further. If you think you can demonstrate a flaw, then quit pissing in your pants and do it. Rewrite your formulation to reflect the argument as it actually is, and demonstrate it. Hell will freeze over first. Upright BiPed

Onlooker, you’ve purposefully ignored specific descriptions given on this thread:

The word “arbitrary” is used in the sense that there is no material or physical connection between the representational arrangement and the effect it evokes (i.e. the word “apple” written on a piece of paper evokes the recall of a particular fruit in an observer, but that recall has nothing whatsoever to do with wood pulp, ink dye, or solvent).

And you’ve repeatedly avoided engaging any examples provided to illuminate the term:

Let’s say you take the genetic symbol C-T-A and put it in your pocket for safe keeping. And tomorrow, you will take it out and run it through a ribosome where it will evoke its specified effect. You can now ask yourself a simple question of logic … can the effect which will not even happen until tomorrow also be the arrangement of matter in your pocket today, even though that effect tomorrow will contain nothing whatsoever that is in your pocket today? Or are these two things necessarily not the same thing?

And all you’ve done is kept repeating:

I’m still not clear what you mean by “necessarily arbitrary”

Then you cry out the claim that I'm being “evasive”. So I ask you to substantiate your claim:

Is your claim of “evasion” valid? This is a question which can be answered by the evidence. You began by asking about a specific thing. If I then provide an example as a means to communicate that specific thing, but it turns out that the example I provided has nothing whatsoever to do with it, then that example is invalid. It may even be presumed to be an evasion of the topic. On the other hand, if that example clearly illustrates the specific thing you asked about, then that example is not only ‘not an evasion’, but is instead an entirely valid attempt to communicate the specific thing which you asked about. You may now support your claim that my example is “evasive” by stating exactly why the example I provided has nothing whatsoever to do with the specific thing you asked about. Or, you can repeat the claim without justification, in which case you run the risk of being labeled evasive yourself. Or you can change the topic away from your claim, which will then demonstrate that your claim was either unwarranted or (itself) evasive. Or you can answer the question posed by the example and we can move on to address how that demonstrates “materially arbitrary” (i.e. the specific thing you asked about). It’s your choice.

Being unable to substantiate your claim, you then return with this stupefying comment:

UB: You began by asking about a specific thing. Onlooker No, I asked what you meant by a specific term.

It must be laborious and numbing to your character, devoting yourself to this kind of cat-and-mouse effort in order to protect your beliefs – all the while maintaining the charade of an intellect. You would deserve my pity if you weren't being deliberate. Upright BiPed

onlooker:

Examples are well and good, but a precise definition is required for the kind of argument that you are attempting to construct.

Why is a 'precise' definition required? What is your definition of a 'precise' definition? Without you giving a precise definition of "precise definition" we can hardly be sure that we have given you a precise definition. I suppose your "precise" definition of a precise definition of the nature 'you'll know it when you see it.' You've given no reason for us to accept your claim that a 'precise' definition is required other than that you want one and won't advance the discussion without one. Not exactly a compelling reason for anyone to believe you. And Upright BiPed has repeatedly indicated he's not going to play "definition derby." So why do you persist? It just indicates further dishonesty on your part.

Unless you choose to directly address the open issues I’ve raised and Upright BiPed agrees with your definitions and restatements, I shan’t bother to respond to you again.

I've attempted to address the issues you've raised. Your insinuation that I haven't is just more intellectual dishonesty and further evidence of the fraudulent nature of your "participation."

I shan’t bother to respond to you again.

We could be so lucky. I think I've already called you a liar. So given that I think you're dishonest and untrustworthy as a partner in discussion do you think I really want to waste any more time on you than is absolutely necessary? Upright BiPed:

Here’s the deal Onlooker. I have no desire to play definition derby with an ideologue.

Onlooker, I hope you don't think you're special. You're just another in a long line of "sincere" people posting here at UD who really do want to "underestand" ID. haha. What a joke. Your style is so reminiscent of, for example, "MathGrrl."

Broadly defined as anything that is very disgusting.

Sorry, you're going to have to come up with a more precise definition than that. Mung

Mung,

Now here’s an interesting sequence of posts: [snip] Looks like onlooker is just a big fraud. As we can see, no real interest in discussion or understanding the argument.

It's too bad for you that all of the responses to those comments you referenced are still viewable in this thread. It makes your dishonest tactics clearly visible. I am simply asking for some definitions. Here is an example of what I mean, since you seem unclear on the concept:

2. mung Broadly defined as anything that is very disgusting. Originally from the acronym "Mash Until No Good" from the practice of making many changes to a code until it is useless. Made popular from the Saturday Night Live sketch "Wayne's World", it was in the top 5 worst things to get in your halloween bag. It was mentioned again in South Park episode 317, this time more narrowly defined as a substance which comes out of a pregnant woman's vagina when pressure is applied to her stomach. And somehow an urban legend involving corpse fluids has sprung off the term mung, though there is no documentation supporting that this is anything other than a gross-out story.

This explains why I often feel the need to shower after exchanging comments with you. Unless you choose to directly address the open issues I've raised and Upright BiPed agrees with your definitions and restatements, I shan't bother to respond to you again. onlooker

Mung,

Anyone? Then why aren’t you willing to clarify your own position? Perhaps if you were willing to discuss your own understanding of the terms involved there could be some progress.

As I have already pointed out, we are discussing Upright BiPed's definitions, not mine. If he is genuinely interested in making his argument understandable, he will define his terms. If he is more afraid of being proven wrong than he is interested in supporting his argument, he won't. Anyone can see the choice he's made thus far. onlooker

Upright BiPed,

By the way Onlooker, you keep saying that I have not responded to Keith’s revamp of my argument. I have already posted a link (249 comments ago) to where I responded immediately after he posted it. The fact is that Keith has never directly responded to my post, yet, you keep right on saying that I have not responded.

I was just browsing The Skeptical Zone and noticed that keiths has responded to this, saving me the trouble:

Upright is still desperately trying to avoid any clarification of his argument. Who knew desperation could be so boring? I’ve asked Upright at least a half a dozen times: If you believe my summary is accurate, then tell us. If you believe that my summary is inaccurate, then modify it while maintaining its clarity and explicitness. Onlooker pointed this out, and Upright replied: I responded directly to Keith immediately after he provided his revamp. He has yet to even mention that response, much less respond to it. You think otherwise? Post the link. Let’s take a look at that so-called "response": As for your rewrite, I have a very simple question to ask of you. Do you think it is relevant to this conversation that the semiotic argument does not contain a B1, or a B2, or a B3? Moreover, do you think it is relevant to the validity of my argument that you ignore the opportunity to challenge the actual premises of the argument, only to inject foreign material into the argument and challenge those instead? Did he "modify it while maintaining its clarity and explicitness"? No. Has he ever done so? No. ("You think otherwise? Post the link." Heh.) Will he ever “modify it while maintaining its clarity and explicitness”? Doubtful. He appears to be afraid that if he does, then its flaws will become obvious and it will be shot down immediately. Upright, When will you stop trying to lead us down rabbit holes and face up to your responsibility? It’s your "Semiotic Theory of ID." It’s your responsibility to support your claims. Can you use the "Semiotic Theory of ID" to show that the protein synthesis system is designed? If you can’t, then just admit it. You aren’t the first ID proponent who worked on an idea for years, only to have it explode in a ball of flames a few seconds after liftoff.

That sums up any objective observer's understanding of what happened at TSZ. Now, how about addressing those open issues? onlooker

Upright BiPed,

You began by asking about a specific thing.

No, I asked what you meant by a specific term. I asked for a definition. Examples are well and good, but a precise definition is required for the kind of argument that you are attempting to construct. If your argument is at all coherent, you must have a particular meaning in mind for the words and terms you use. I would like to know that meaning in order to understand your argument. If you are using a particular dictionary definition, please just point to it. If you are using your own definition specific to your argument, please state it as a dictionary definition. This really shouldn't be so hard for someone interested in communicating their views. You are still not behaving like that is your goal. Here are the open issues again for your convenience. A clear, coherent, direct response would be greatly appreciated. - How exactly can information be measured? - Does information, by your definition, have standard units? - Does your definition correspond to any standard definitions? - What is your precise definition of "arbitrary"? - Please restate your premise "If there is an arrangement of matter that constitutes information, that arrangement is necessarily arbitrary to the thing to which the information refers." to clarify exactly what you are trying to communicate. - What does "necessarily arbitrary" mean in that premise? onlooker

This is great, when reality refutes your position just deny reality:

I’d say that if you have an ‘artificial ribosome’ and it does not function, you probably do not have an artificial ribosome. You have a piece of RNA. A non-functioning artificial ribosome is much like my artificial heart made of lettuce, my sundial with the ice gnomon and my sand car. It does not become what you say it is just because you say it.

I will go with the scientists who said they created an artificial ribosome that doesn't function over an obvious ideologue who doesn't have a clue.

It’s not ‘programming’ that is lacking, it is the correct molecular configuration to perform ribosome function.

Then I take it you will be joining their labs and setting them straight. Ya see they claim to have the correct molecular configuration. But I am sure you know better than all of those scientists.

Chemistry is not programming. Programming, meanwhile, is not chemistry.

True but living organisms are more than just chemistry. There is something directing the chemistry and that something is programming. Joe

Joe: I have a draft speech to follow up on, but could not resist this:

the [Darwinist/Evolutionary materialist] response is always “Eons of time cannot be reproduced in a lab and all we have is eons of time to hide behind. Oh and a bunch of promissory notes”

This brings to front-centre, the issue of the unobservable in science I headlined yesterday with the classic Tek 465 CRO as an illustration of how we infer to the unobserved in science per inductive warrant. (Which surfaces the pivotal importance of that syllabus of 18 Q's.) Electronics is built on the electron, which is accepted as very real, even a fact of day to day life, though unobserved or even unobservable. We simply see too many convergent effects that cry out for the electron as common cause. We are as a result morally certain of its reality, though what we actually see are things like little drops of oil in a Millikan oil drop exercise, drifting up/down as we try to balance the voltage against gravity. (I well recall my own frustrations working with a lab set for replicating that classic exercise!) Or, we may see curlicues of bubbles in a bubble chamber or droplets of cloud in a cloud chamber, or of course the trace on a CRO's phosphor screen. The inferred, convergent, best explanation is the electron. Never yet directly seen, and probably never will be, but an accepted fact of life from its effects. Let's clip someone politically incorrect on that sort of thinking:

Jn 3:3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3 In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]” 4 “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” 5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. 10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[d] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e] 16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him . . . 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”[h][NIV, cf here on in context and here on in context for a 101 look at some of the warranting context]

Uh huh, believing in the invisible can make a lot of good sense, to those willing to be docile -- teachable -- before the evidence. No promises for the willfully defiant who will resort to selectively hyperskeptical objections and cling to any absurdity to protect a cherished materialism proudly flying the false flag of science. (And denizens of TSZ et al, that is an exercise of the right of fair comment on responsible investigation.) In science, too, we often need to assess the reality of the unobserved. As I have repeatedly pointed out, where that addresses something like origins, that is done by inference to best current explanation in light of traces of the unobserved and cause-effect patterns and characteristic signs we can and do observe in the present. Where, if we know that per repeated experiment a certain causal factor reliably leaves certain characteristic signs, then it is reasonable to infer from sign to associated cause per that body of investigation. I have long used the case of inferring deer from deer tracks as an illustrative case on the logic involved. What happens, as was already discussed, is that the living cell is full of FSCO/I, which is a characteristic trace of IDOW, i.e. design. So, if we see FSCO/I, we are properly entitled to infer to design as cause, given what we observe and what we can see on the needle in the haystack analysis. The verbal stunts and rhetorical gymnastics we have seen for years form those disinclined to accept so simple a pattern of thought, and the number of spurious counter-examples put for