Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

UB Sets It Out Step-By-Step

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD Editors:  No one has come close to refuting UB’s thesis after 129 comments.  We are moving this post to the top of the page to give the materialists another chance.

I take the following from an excellent comment UB made in a prior post.  UB lays out his argument step by step, precept by precept.  Then he arrives at a conclusion.  In order for his argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow from the premises.  In order for his argument to be sound, each of the premises must be true.

Now here is the challenge to our Darwinist friends.  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).

Without further ado, here is UB’s argument:

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).

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comments
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
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
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
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
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
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
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
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
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
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
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
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
Pardon the screwed up formatting. Admins: Why isn't there an edit function?CentralScrutinizer
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
"...ignore the impressively..." "...evoke the effect?"BioTurboNick
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
...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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Onlooker? Are you able to articulate what you do not understand about the text you bolded?Upright BiPed
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
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
September 26, 2012
September
09
Sep
26
26
2012
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
1 23 24 25 26 27 48

Leave a Reply