Upright Biped Explains Emergence

_{Barry Arrington

February 22, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

In a comment to a prior post Tom quotes a Darwinist article regarding the source of information at the origin of life: “The idea is to give them enough information wherewithal [genetic building blocks] so they can start inventing their own solutions rather than just optimizing existing solutions,”

To which Tom responds:

The key word here is information. The key issue is how does a philosophy (naturalism) explain the existence of information within the confines of its explanatory resources? Since the very definition of naturalism includes the idea that the universe is causally closed (that is all causes ultimately resolve in physical laws – NOT mind) and therefore that the laws of physics ONLY have explanatory power, how then do they account for information?

They cannot. Information requires language. All languages are comprised of symbols and rules for the arrangement of those symbols. It is impossible to have information apart from a language. It is equally impossible for the laws of physics to explain either symbols or the rules that govern the use of those symbols. Therefore, naturalism can never, ever, explain information, and thus life. When darwinism succumbs to the next naturalist explanation of life (evo-devo or whatever) the new explanation will face the same insurmountable challenge. How to explain information in terms of physics and time? The game is over but we seem to still be playing. Why is that? I think it must be rebellion against Reason.

To which Upright Biped replies (tongue in cheek)

Emergence, Tom. Emergence.
Information is an emergent property of matter. Mind is an emergent property of matter. Free will is an emergent property of matter. Irreducible complexity is an emergent property of matter. Specification is an emergent property of matter. Semiosis is an emergent property of matter. Homeostasis is an emergent property of matter. Functionality is an emergent property of matter. Discontinuous coordination is an emergent property of matter. Algorithms are an emergent property of matter.

Now, exactly how this all happens, no one has even a conceptual clue, but that is precisly the beauty of its explanatory power.

Emergence is an emergent property of matter.

It’s just the kind of powerful empiricism that the unsophisticated God-of-the-Gaps crowd is literally too dense to appreciate.

Both Tom and Upright are, of course, correct. The search for a materialist source of information is futile. Undirected natural processes do not have the “right stuff” to generate the complex specified information necessary for life to exist. And the materialists’ increasingly frequent resort to the concept of “emergence” is laughable. Emergence = Materialist miracle. See my “Materialist Poofery” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/materialist-poofery/ for an extended discussion on the topic.

Bottom line: When materialists resort to “magic” by another name, we need to call them on it.

Comments

Upright BiPed @59, Is the Internet even designed to handle this much civility at one time? :) Thank you, TorontoToronto_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Lock @58, I understand now that you tend to put a lot of yourself into a discussion. :) I'm sure this will come up often and we'll get a chance to have another go at understanding each other. TorontoToronto_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Toronto, If I may, I'd like to offer my apologies as well. Best Regards...Upright BiPed_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Forgive me, I meant no offense Toronto and have rarely encountered one as honest as you. So I in no way intended it as a request to have no further exchanges. I have also said things that are logically absurd and meaningless. Just ask my wife :) No one will call me to the mat in more uncertain terms than her! So it was not an insult, nor was it intended to be. It is just something we all do on occasion. We are not so smart as we think. You asked me to tell you what was wrong with your analysis and I took it that you implied I do so 'plainly'. That is what I did. I thought you requested it rhetorically, as though it were inaguable and settled. I could have been insulted. But I was not. Rather, I was trying to build on that momentum, because I know that nothing educates like a shock. I have been shocked many times. I have even wanted to crawl in a hole and die. I have been totally and utterly wrong... After re-reading my last reply, I can understand why you assumed a tone which was not there. But I assure you, that it was written devoid of emotional intent. I was being logical. But perhaps that was the problem... I was speaking with mere logic and not sensitive to your dignity. You are not simply a machine, you are a person. I am sorry. Just be mindful of your own pride. I need constant reminding of my own... You said that assuming objective meaning can lead to misunderstandings, and you are correct. This last exchange is a prime example. But so can assuming subjective meaning. Some things are objective and absolute, and some things are relative and subjective. If we try and make everthing absolute, or everything subjective we run into logical absurdities. Think about it all and decide for yourself. Btw, the idea you posited concerning subjectivity was not yours. I once held it myself. So I was not so much rebuking you as I was the idea and spirit itself. It has a long history and is one of the most seductive of all temptations. That is why I am not suprised it befalls so many of us. I hope that puts things in context Toronto. I think we have covered this ground pretty well, and it really doesn't even belong in Bipeds thread. But I will give you the last word if you have any, and perhaps we can discuss it again sometime in the future. Best regards, LockLock_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Lock @56,
What you have said is meaningless, and logically absurd.
I'll take that as a request that you don't wish to have any further exchanges with me. I will honour that. Thanks for the reply.Toronto_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Toronto @52 The above can be reduced to; 1) I believe I am right. 2) You believe I am wrong. What is wrong with those statements? No it cannot. Based upon your own rules, if what you say is true, then it cannot be reduced, because that would yet again be just another subjective opinion on your part. What you have said is meaningless, and logically absurd. What you have offered is an infinite regress of subjectivity; a neverending cascade of self defeating propositions by which to feign framing what is actually the case objectively. But you have already dissavowed the abiltiy to reduce anything to bare bones and objective fact. Please do not impose your subjective view, that all is subjective, upon me. It is your failed pressuposition, not mine. Should I be suprised that a man of such thought would fall so easily to the oldest trick on earth? The first thing Satan said to humanity was, "Has God really said?" Perhaps the woman should have asked him in reply, "have you"?Lock_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

hrun, What is the probability that the universe came into being from an infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitly dense point in the remote past? I'd say its pretty good judging by the evidence. But, that is because the conclusion follows from the actual evidence itself (not from a mandated non-falsifiable presupposition about what the evidence may and may not be allowed to infer). The inferences to design flow from the actual evidence as well. The entire biologial world is beset with the transfer and processing of context-specific semiotic information. Now, is the coordination of semiotic relationships observed more as the product of chance events, natural law, or agency? How many naturally occuring algothms are you aware of? How many? How about logic gates acting upon dicreet input? I strongly suggest that you email to Dr Abel and ask him his opinion of the matter. He will ardently refuse to become entagled in this debate, but he will likely answer that question. It's about the observable evidence.Upright BiPed_{February 25, 2010
February
02
Feb
25
25
2010
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

hrun0815 is your “I know you are but what am I” playground argument an attempt at humor?
Actually, no. ID always seems to make an argument of the style 'it couldn't have been anything other than design by an intelligent agent'. Yet, nobody tries to 'overcome the statistical barriers Abel highlights'. Remember, Abel, who is cited by kairosfocus says: "No low-probability hypothetical plausibility assertion should survive peer-review without subjection to the UPP inequality standard of formal falsification (? < 1)."hrun0815_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

Correction: in #45 it should read, "That is a contradictory statement and therefore false. You said you believe in logic right? You are positing an objective reality within a context while denying one within the same".Lock_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Lock @51,
Toronto:“No, subjectively, I am wrong, based on your subjective viewpoint. Subjectively, I am right, based on my subjective viewpoint.”
The above can be reduced to; 1) I believe I am right. 2) You believe I am wrong. What is wrong with those statements? I included the qualifier subjective for each of us because I believe it really is your opinion that I am wrong, and I am 100% sure that it is my opinion that I am right.
That is contradictory statement and therefore false. You said you believe in logic right?
How is my believing I am right conflict with your belief that I am wrong? Whatever my beliefs are, they in no way prevent you from believing in yours.
You are positing any objective reality within a context while denying one within the same.
How does my explicit use of the term subjective" 4 times in 2 sentences qualify as an objective statement of any type?Toronto_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

Toronto, I am going to throw a few things together here in response, but before I do, I just want you to notice how tolerant and liberal the moderators are here. I have been in forums where such sidebars as ours were immediately expelled. Toronto:"No, subjectively, I am wrong, based on your subjective viewpoint. Subjectively, I am right, based on my subjective viewpoint." That is contradictory statement and therefore false. You said you believe in logic right? You are positing any objective reality within a context while denying one within the same. Yours is just a rebellion. That's all. And I have some sources of our cultural rebellion to offer below. Such rebellious pressupositions are fro some reason, still quite in vogue. Toronto: The only other way I could be objectively wrong despite our contrary viewpoints, is if an outside entity, such as God, decided it was so. :) Have you forgotten the lines given you by the producer and replaced them with your own? These men have... “Refusing to assign a secret, ultimate meaning to text liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity. An activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases—reason, science, law.” (Roland Barthes / Death of the Author) If only I knew what the author of that gibberish meant! "I'm afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." (Nietzche) Dear Freidrich, can you please express the concept without using grammar. Sincerely, Lock Toronato, I would now like to juxtapose those undeniably and supremely subjective and contradictory ideas with logic that is utterly axiomatic and coherent. Especially considering that you appear to already understand (at least in theory) that only God Himself could give us the true light of objectivity. We cannot declare it on our own. On that I would agree with you. And it is why I reject what you say. And it is why you reject what I say. I suppose our only hope would be to find one who was God. No self proclaimed prophet (theistic or otherwise) need apply unless he wants to claim that he is sent by God, is God, and preferably both. At least then, it would be logical. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it... 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.Lock_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler @48, Agreed, 100%. Let's do that.Toronto_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Seversky @ 12 "There is a widespread assumption that information is a property of physical systems like the molecules of DNA but there is also a minority opinion, to which I tend to subscribe, that information is more a property of the models we construct to try and understand the world" How would information be a property of physical systems? Let's say that I have a box of cheerios as my "physical system." Let's further say that I accidentally knock it over on the kitchen counter. Do the cheerios lying on the counter contain information? Let's say instead that I arrange the cheerios into a string of letters that say, "sorry Mom, I spilled the cheerios, I'll clean them up when I get home, love, your messy son." Do you see the difference? It's not the physical substrate that contains the information as an intrinsic property. It's the arrangement of the cheerios into specific symbols according to the rules of English that encode a message. The cheerios, the physical substrate, have nothing to do with the information per se. I'm not sure what you are saying about the minority opinion. If you are saying that intelligence accounts for information then we agree. Somehow I don't think that's it, though.tgpeeler_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Toronto @ 24 Would the simple solution to this problem be to say that the first thing to be done when arguing is define one's terms?tgpeeler_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @46,
0 –> Prelim: And, Tor, on whose terms would you ever be willing to acknowledge correction?
I will accept correction from anyone if they can give me a convincing argument. I remember my daughter when she was 5 saying, "But Dad, ........", and she was right in her argument and I told her so. I am an atheist but you could convince me to believe in a god if you had a good enough argument. My atheism and any other position I hold is on the line every day and to everyone. As far as an objective truth that exists outside of us, I have never seen a good enough argument to warrant that. If an objective truth existed, one group of people would be able to cling to it more so than any other group since a real objective truth would be easier to defend than one that is false. Yet no group has ever wavered in the least in asserting that their truth was the right one. Why is that?Toronto_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

PPS: I could only be objectively wrong, if we both agreed that I was. In steps: 0 --> Prelim: And, Tor, on whose terms would you ever be willing to acknowledge correction? (Do you not see that your statement is an excuse for closed-mindedness in the teeth of correction?) 2 --> Let's start here, following Josiah Royce: error exists. (Try to deny it and you will only exemplify its truth, i.e. it is undeniably and self-evidently true and immediately grounds the point that knowable, warranted truth exists. Not least as that which says of what is, that it is and of what is not that it is not, and as that which we make errors about. Try denying that and see if it does not land you in self-referential incoherence.) 3 --> In that context, objective truth exists as that truth which a reasonable individual -- one willing to live by basic principles of reasoning in the world we share, and in particular willing to yield to correction -- may discover and even warrant, as opposed to invent. 4 --> Further to this, the unreasonable or closed minded person may reject or deny the objective truth, but that says more about his or her state of mind than about he existence of the truth or the objective truth. 5 --> And so "inter-subjective agreement" fails as a test of objective truth. Two people or even a whole civilisation, may make the same error; indeed in former days, our civilisation did so about things like slavery and racism. 6 --> And one person "contra mundum" may well be right. the issue is, which is saying of what is, that ti is and of what is not that it is not, and how we may reasonably test for that. 7 --> In that context, I hope you see that mere perception or opinion are not to be equated to truth, and agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with whether or no a particular truth is objectively established.kairosfocus_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @44
PS: And Tor, please correct yet another strawman. For, (1) information, (2) message and (3) language do not usually mean the same thing, and we do not use them as synonyms, but as conceptually linked terms.
I'm with you. 1. Information: A description of an observation. 2. Message: The data content of communications between one or more end nodes. (Data content could be null) 3. Language: A protocol for communication.Toronto_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

PS: And Tor, please correct yet another strawman. For, (1) information, (2) message and (3) language do not usually mean the same thing, and we do not use them as synonyms, but as conceptually linked terms. Functionally specified complex information [FSCI -- the subset of CSI on the table since Orgel et al were looking at cellular components in the early 70s] may be encoded under the symbols and rules of a symbolic language [ASCII code and related, or genetic code spring to mind] -- or may be translatable into such [see my remarks on measuring information implicit in "wiring diagrams" of nodes and arcs, and related wireframes . . . ] -- and can then be sent or stored as a message; but, to start with, we are here denoting a very special sub-class of information, such as is in a computer program, or in the net of an exploded view of an integrated functional system, or the process flow and piping and units and instrumentation diagram for a chemical plant or the metabolic reactions in a cell the like. (This is not at all the same as Shannon info, which is really a metric of info capacity!) And once we go beyond that to the encoding of info as a message in a particular coding and representing system or language, that is still more distinct.kairosfocus_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @41,
Did you not see what I emphasised, i.e the stuff on “more neutral” language? Take that strawman out of the thread please!
It may not be obvious to anyone what my goal is on this site so please let me explain. I would like to see this debate get in front of public panels, e.g., courts, boards of education, public inquiries etc. If this issue stays just under the surface, there will always be "Dovers", where one group institutes new science standards and the next group removes. This is unfair to students and society. If you take a view of this debate where you can make demands like, "Take that strawman out of the thread please!", we will never get a chance of debating this in a large public forum. You cannot censor or demand certain behaviour from your opponents, you have to appear as if you are treating them with respect. If Behe during Dover had simply answered in any way the issue of the books on the table in front of him instead of waving them away, your side might have allowed the judge to score some points for your side. It wasn't the content of his response that hurt him, it was his dismissal of the question. You are trying to do that with your strawman arguments and the public won't buy it. Keep it up and neither of us get our day in court.Toronto_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @41, What strawman are you taking about? I have no idea what post you are replying to.Toronto_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Tor Did you not see what I emphasised, i.e the stuff on "more neutral" language? Take that strawman out of the thread please! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @39,
Does this also hold true about the assertion of the existence of a ‘designer’ prior to the appearance of all intelligent life that we know of?
I take this as a serious reply to kairosfocus and I think the general public is going to ask this very question if this debate gets into a courtroom or in front of an educational board. Scientifically speaking, why is the improbability of life arising naturally more improbable than the existence of an omnipotent being that transcends nature. The reply your side gives has to sound reasonable to an audience of atheists, multiple religions and TE's.Toronto_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

hrun0815 is your "I know you are but what am I" playground argument an attempt at humor?Barry Arrington_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Lock @35,
Objectively, you are wrong.
No, subjectively, I am wrong, based on your subjective viewpoint. Subjectively, I am right, based on my subjective viewpoint. I could only be objectively wrong, if we both agreed that I was. The only other way I could be objectively wrong despite our contrary viewpoints, is if an outside entity, such as God, decided it was so. Is that what you mean by objective? I would really like to know from everyone, what's wrong with trying to be more concise? Why am I getting resistance for trying to get people to think about using terms that don't lead to misunderstanding? Let's try and get this debate out into the public forums. We can't do that if the public at large sees that we can't even agree on terminology. They'll tune us out faster than Jay Leno's variety show.Toronto_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Have fun trying to overcome the statistical barriers Abel highlights.
Does this also hold true about the assertion of the existence of a 'designer' prior to the appearance of all intelligent life that we know of?hrun0815_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Graham @26,
Can someone explain the existence of information ? Does information exist as an independant thing ? Can it be destroyed ?
I don't believe information exists without an observer. For instance, I could look at a rose and note that it is red, but the color is not in the rose. It is reflecting the wavelength of light we detect and then we label as "the colour red". On this site, I have seen the terms, "information", "message" and "language" to mean the exact same thing. I don't think they do.Toronto_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Toronto @29 I’ll try once more. We shouldn’t assume words have an objective meaning. I agree they have a subjective meaning. Do you expect me to know what you mean? Am I to understand what all those words mean in the context of our discussion? Yes. As per your example, when you walk into a resturant and scream 'Duck!', the context is in question. But I wonder... do you expect me to be able to pull the correct concepts together based on the symbols you gave me to represent them? In the context of this discussion yes. But a person screaming duck is only playing word games, or having a bad day, or telling someone (perhaps everyoe) to get their heads down, or whatever. The context is uncertain. I understand what you want words to mean. I understand your pressuposition. But that is the subjective part you bring to the philosophical table. Objectively, you are wrong.Lock_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

That means you may use a word differently than I. If I realize that could be the case, I can try using more neutral terms to begin with.
OOPS!
I'm going to assume from your OOPS response that you don't want me to assume that you may use a word differently than I. If we do that, the ID/Evo debate will never get into a public debate with any hope of success. I'll argue about how "tall" evolution is, and you'll respond by providing proof that there's no way it could "weigh" that much.Toronto_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Avo: Radical post-modern relativism and subjectivism are utterly corrosive of coherent reason, thence of mathematics, knowledge and and science. That individuals operating in a fundamentally irrational worldview may wall off part of their work and inconsistently smuggle in ideas that properly belong to other worldviews, and which if they were to think through would undercut their own, simply reflects their irrationality multiplied by the pragmatic criterion of going with what "works." "Emergence" is in fact an apt example. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT}

Tor: Let's observe:
We shouldn’t assume words have an objective meaning. I agree they have a subjective meaning. That means you may use a word differently than I. If I realize that could be the case, I can try using more neutral terms to begin with.
OOPS! In short there are indeed subjective, conventional [what "duck" means as a verb in some dialects of English, vs what he NOUN "duck" means in other dialects of English, or the equivalent nouns mean when used in a shorthand way in a restaurant in a Chinese environment, etc . . . ] AND objective components in language. And, verbal, symbolic, syntactical, meaningful language is -- per massive observational -- on every directly observed case of origin, a product and characteristic of intelligence. Programmed machines may USE linguistic information in their functionality, but they -- on our OBSERVATION -- do not originate it. (And this would obtain for von Neumann replicators with embedded universal constructors.] And so, we see yet another re-labelling of a problem and calling it a solution. "Emergence" as commonly used by evolutionary materialists -- so long as they are unable to resolve the "lucky noise" problem -- is no better than "poof-magic." And, to do so they have to cogently address the points in this recent peer-reviewed Abel paper. Have fun trying to overcome the statistical barriers Abel highlights. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply