Intelligent design

[Buffy]

It amazes me that these things have to be explained at all. People keep citing "information theory" to me to defend evolution and it's the strangest thing… it turns logic on its head. Problem is, they're using the word "information" in a different context, but they don't realize how or why. They say that the more random things are, the more information they contain.

Well, to be extremely charitable, this is highly misleading and offensive, but I'll grant you that you do not realize its offensive because you have not yet taken the time to try to understand the topic. As usual there's a nice Wikipedia page on the topic for those of you who do wish to learn.

 

Ignorance is Certainty,

Buffy

[Buffy]

chaos is not a natural state. when chaos exists, the tendency is to reaffirm order or the event/particle would tend to decay.

The second law of thermodynamics does state that order degrades in to disorder (increases its entropy), but only in a closed system: if energy is input from outside (like the Sun streams gobs of energy into the Earth every day), order increases. Its actually hard to say what a "natural state" is because it does not have an exact definition.

quantum particles may exhibit random behavior, but this behavior does not result in expansion to other systems.

Sure it does: read up on Brownian Motion. Any instrument that measures sub-atomic phenomena (atomic clocks, mechanical random number generators), all can affect the macroscopic level.

if chaos existed on the macroscopic level, the universe would cease to exist.

Can you explain what you mean by this? There's chaos all over the place: the weather, the stock market, the price of gas. All these systems have processes that fortunately moderate their over all flow and direction over time, but they are actually all driven by random (stochastic) processes.

i don't think we use chaos thory to go to the moon.

Well, the theory itself has been more formalized in the intervening 35 years, but combustion is a chaotic process. Human consumption of oxygen is random too (averaged over time it is but in the short-term it fluctuates based on random external events). Probabilities of various scenarious that could occur randomly were extensively computed. That's all analysis of chaos.

does anyone have any mathematical models to explain life, or thought?

Yes, there's actually a lot of work that has been and is being done on the mechanics of human consciousness although a lot of it is conjecture (here are a couple of fun ones electromagnetic theory and space-time theory).

does anyone disbelieve thought exists because we can't test its source?

That's not a scientific statement. Just because we can't test something does not mean that its *not true* it just means *we don't know*. We do know thought exists, and the Turing Test I keep referring to here is all about trying to even define what "thought" *is*.

do you think chaos exists in the human body?

Sure! My step-dad has a pacemaker hooked into his heart because of chaos!

 

Chaos Breeds Creativity,

Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, i looked at the link you suggested and a couple of things stood out:

1. many types of information and transmission were discussed, but the information i'm talking about is that which enables particles to transmit data to other particles which if acted upon, produce a predictable result.

2. you have referred on several occasions to Dembski, a proponent of ID. if his argument has the bottom line of proving the existence of the Christian God, i can understand the resistance to it. what i cannot understand is the inability of people to

consider the possible existence of a Creator who created the universe long before mankind was on earth to invent the Christian God.

[questor]

Buffy, chaos also breeds destruction. your father has a pacemaker not because of chaos,

but because of a malfunction of his vagus nerve. maybe a change in his sympathetic neural

transmission. chaos does not breed longevity, and the universe on a macro basis is well

ordered, or else we wouldn't exist. of course there are malfunctions on a micro level, but they do not permeate the universe. this fact, plus the presence of information, and the presence of life and thought, lead me to the conclusion of ID. you may also wonder if there are not yet undetected forces and particles which may explain the dichotomies between quantum mechanics and GR. both of these are true, but don't agree.

[Buffy]

1. many types of information and transmission were discussed, but the information i'm talking about is that which enables particles to transmit data to other particles which if acted upon, produce a predictable result.

Sure, its not really obvious, and a lot of this is counterintuitive, but in thermodynamics particles colliding (or influencing through electromagnetism or radioactive decay) transfer energy. Energy is the component of information theory that transmits information about states. Without getting to specific examples, its a little bit harder to describe. I'll find some and post them for you.

2. you have referred on several occasions to Dembski, a proponent of ID. if his argument has the bottom line of proving the existence of the Christian God, i can understand the resistance to it. what i cannot understand is the inability of people to

consider the possible existence of a Creator who created the universe long before mankind was on earth to invent the Christian God.

You're falling into the rhetorical trap that says that anyone who disputes an unsupportable (indeed disproven) theory that attempts to show evidence of a creator does not believe in a creator. That is not just unfair, its bald-faced prejudice. In my view--and I encourage you to do your own research--Dembski's theories are completely disproven, to conclude that I therefore do not believe in higher powers is both wrong and even offensive (although I'm sure that's the conclusion drawn by Specified Complexity...). *How* God made the universe is a metaphysical discussion (at least until there's some matierialistic evidence and theories that do give answers to these questions) and outside the realm of science. Maybe we disagree about a "meddling" God versus the "Gal who pushed the Start Button" but that is a philosophical, theological and metaphysical debate, not a scientific one.

 

You should also be careful of falling into the victimological trap of saying that some people think its okay to hate Christians but not other religions. That can also be taken the wrong way....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

your father has a pacemaker not because of chaos, but because of a malfunction of his vagus nerve.

Was the malfunction "on purpose"? The physical evidence shows that the part randomly failed, just like in all systems. But it was random, unless you can find another cause for it.

of course there are malfunctions on a micro level, but they do not permeate the universe.

Well, "permeate" is a vague and qualitative statement, so its not really possible to even begin to discuss what that means, although I'd be happy to hear what you mean by it. I see chaos everywhere. I think its a good thing! It drives all sorts of things as I mentioned in the previous post.

this fact, plus the presence of information, and the presence of life and thought, lead me to the conclusion of ID.

Cool! I have no problem with that at all, its just that there's nothing scientifically convincing about the method you've followed to come to that conclusion. Your belief is *not* wrong, just not demonstrable scientifically.

you may also wonder if there are not yet undetected forces and particles which may explain the dichotomies between quantum mechanics and GR. both of these are true, but don't agree.

We're all busily looking for those. Really interesting stuff.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Can anyone remember the spell used to invoke UncleAl?

[IrishEyes]

Can anyone remember the spell used to invoke UncleAl?

Bippity boppity boo???

[questor]

Buffy, you said:

''You're falling into the rhetorical trap that says that anyone who disputes an unsupportable (indeed disproven) theory that attempts to show evidence of a creator does not believe in a creator. That is not just unfair, its bald-faced prejudice. In my view--and I encourage you to do your own research--Dembski's theories are completely disproven, to conclude that I therefore do not believe in higher powers is both wrong and even offensive (although I'm sure that's the conclusion drawn by Specified Complexity...). *How* God made the universe is a metaphysical discussion (at least until there's some matierialistic evidence and theories that do give answers to these questions) and outside the realm of science. Maybe we disagree about a "meddling" God versus the "Gal who pushed the Start Button" but that is a philosophical, theological and metaphysical debate, not a scientific one.

 

You should also be careful of falling into the victimological trap of saying that some people think its okay to hate Christians but not other religions. That can also be taken the wrong way....''

1. your fathers problem has a cause which could be discerned by investigation into the reason for the malfunction of his vagus nerve, or whatever is causing his problem. it is a macro event, not connected with chaos or mystery.

2.how have Dembski's theories been scientifically disproved ?

3. why can't you understand i am not talking about the Christian God when i discuss the creator ? Dembski and i are apples and oranges. it is offensive that you have not read my post.

4. where have i said anything about hate for Christians ? although it is obvious that much of it exists in this country. i guess it has to do with morality and judgementalism.

5. i try to express myself clearly and logically, i must have some type of communication problem.

[Boerseun]

Bippity boppity boo???

In that case,

 

- All together, now -

 

Bippity, boppity... Hey, you in the back, too!

 

Let's try again:

 

Bippity, boppity... BOO!

[Buffy]

1. your fathers problem has a cause which could be discerned by investigation into the reason for the malfunction of his vagus nerve, or whatever is causing his problem. it is a macro event, not connected with chaos or mystery.

Not necessarily: we know that a certain percentage of these nerves fail, they fail because their constituent cells are weak, those cells are weak because of problems in the configuration content and state of their constituent molecules which are acted upon by random events. If there were no randomness to this process, all cells would be identical and all would either work perfectly or fail at exactly the same lifespan. Is there some other mechanism for explaining the randomness of failures that you're proposing?

2.how have Dembski's theories been scientifically disproved ?

I went into that in some detail a few posts back in this thread here.

3. why can't you understand i am not talking about the Christian God when i discuss the creator?

I've been assuming that you're not talking about the Christian God, its not part of the ID argument at all. I'm sorry if I was not more clear:

4. where have i said anything about hate for Christians ? although it is obvious that much of it exists in this country. i guess it has to do with morality and judgementalism.

I thought it was implied by your earlier statement:

"if his argument has the bottom line of proving the existence of the Christian God, i can understand the resistance to it."

How come you can understand resistance to it? I assumed you meant that some descriminate against Christians because they feel its okay to disagree with it if its the Christian god, but not others. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. My point is that the feeling that as you state here "it is obvious that much of it (hate for Christians) exists in this country" is what I'm refering to as victimology: are you sure there are so many others that "hate" Christians? Or is expressing any belief that is in contradiction to Christian belief evidence of "hate?" Unfortunately I all too often see the same individuals at one moment saying they are being persecuted for being Christian (or Muslim or whatever), and then the next moment saying "if blacks (or pick your favorite minority that you're not a member of) that aren't successful aren't discriminated against, they just don't try hard enough."

5. i try to express myself clearly and logically, i must have some type of communication problem.

Quite the contrary, I find your posts lucid and interesting. Written communications in these disjointed (and *way* too long!) threads is a challenge for anyone. Being calm and trying not to jump to conclusions is the best course. If you're not sure of what someone meant, its always best to simply ask.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Can anyone remember the spell used to invoke UncleAl?

Illucid! Test of Faith!

 

Now I'm offended that you think we need him at the moment! Before you came along I slew Freethinker! :)

 

How do you like your stake prepared?

Buffy

[IrishEyes]

Illucid! Test of Faith!

Now I'm offended that you think we need him at the moment! Before you came along I slew Freethinker! :)

How do you like your stake prepared?

Buffy

Medium rare, thanks.

Everyone claims they slew FreeT. How many of those claims are true? :)

Test of Faith, indeed.

 

You're doing an admirable job, Buffy. I think B may be referring to the fact that you are actually intelligently and calmly discussing something that UA would just 'bah!' at. At least, I think that's what he means. But then again, I've been wrong before... :)

[Buffy]

Everyone claims they slew FreeT. How many of those claims are true? :)

I actually didn't think so either. But Zad told me so. I trust Zad's opinion and I miss him (he still lurks occasionally though!)

 

Bernaise or Bordelaise?

Buffy

[TRoutMac]

Well, to be extremely charitable, this is highly misleading and offensive, but I'll grant you that you do not realize its offensive because you have not yet taken the time to try to understand the topic. As usual there's a nice Wikipedia page on the topic for those of you who do wish to learn.

 

First of all, it's not my intent to offend and certainly not to mislead. This "Shannon Information" thing has been brought up before, and that's roughly been how the idea has been presented to me.

 

So it appears to me that we're talking about two different things; that the word "information" is being used in two different ways and this creates much confusion. I think it's wise to establish just what we mean by "information" and in which context.

 

We already talked about "intrinsic" vs. "extrinsic" information, and that's an important distinction. But it appears that either of these are generally compatible with the ordinary, everyday meaning of the word “information”, which refers to meaningful content. For example, I could drive by the gas station up the street and see the flowers they've planted in front and get certain types of "information" from those flowers such as colors, species, height, etc., and all of this by virtue of my perception of visual information which is "intrinsic" to the planting of flowers.

 

But I might also notice that the flowers are planted in such a way that it spells the word "SHELL". And from that I know something else… that the gas station is a Shell franchise. This is information that flowers cannot otherwise communicate, it is "extrinsic" to the physical properties of the flowers. We would all agree that it is highly improbable (dare I say impossible) for the flowers to have grown this way and in this location "naturally". Right?

 

Assuming we agree on this, I must ask the following:

 

Of the 7 definitions listed below, which definition best fits the usage of the word "information" in my planted flowers example, and which definition best fits the word "information" as used in the context of "Shannon Information"?

 

1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.

2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news.

3. A collection of facts or data.

4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge.

5. (Computer Science) Processed, stored, or transmitted data.

6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.

7. (Law) A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.

[Buffy]

We already talked about "intrinsic" vs. "extrinsic" information, and that's an important distinction. But it appears that either of these are generally compatible with the ordinary, everyday meaning of the word “information”, which refers to meaningful content. For example, I could drive by the gas station....

There's a further distinction that it occurs to me that needs to be expressed here: Your arguments are very much tied to "meaning" however meaning requires context and agreement on what the meaning is. A simple one is language: In English "nova" means an exploding star while "no va" in Spanish means "it doesn't go". Depending on the *agreement* of the speakers, the exact same "information" has completely different meanings. Similarly you can say "no va" and I can say "doesn't go" and completely different information has the *same* meaning. Further "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" has no *meaning* whatsoever, although its catchy, memorable, and contains information (in the computer science/information theory/thermodynamical sense).

 

My point here is that whether or not information exists or shows patterns whatever measure you wish to use, it is not possible to conclude *without some knowledge of its provenance* that any body of "information" has *meaning.* Humans assign meaning to things. DNA is a sequence, its ordered, it even defines and drives a mechanical process, but only *we* see meaning, and its completely *subjective* once you get beyond mapping gene sequences onto changes in morphology or behavior, and even that's hit or miss at the moment.

We would all agree that it is highly improbable (dare I say impossible) for the flowers to have grown this way and in this location "naturally". Right?

It might be fairly improbable, but of course it would not be perceived as even notable to someone who was only familiar with Chinese, because it would have no meaningful interpretation. It might not even appear odd to him at all!

 

Now the confusion about the definition of the word "information" is indeed tied to the fact that much of what we colloquially ascribe to the term is tied to this sense of "meaning" which indeed is outside of what is meant by "information" in information theory. In fact, they are completely independent and uncorrellated!

 

Unfortunately the example here shows the fundamental problem you face in trying to draw the kinds of inferences that would support your theories: namely that "meaning" is not measurable without agreement of the observers! "Meaning" and "information content" are completely orthogonal and unrelated. As a result, there is no way to use any measure of "information content" or "complexity" to objectively and conclusively identify a "meaning implanted by an intelligent source". That meaning can *only* come from an agreement or knowledge of that source as to what it meant when it created it.

 

Now while your pulled definitions of information aren't terribly useful in understanding the difference I'm talking about here, lets take a look at your question:

Of the 7 definitions listed below, which definition best fits the usage of the word "information" in my planted flowers example, and which definition best fits the word "information" as used in the context of "Shannon Information"?

 

1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.

2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news.

3. A collection of facts or data.

4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge.

5. (Computer Science) Processed, stored, or transmitted data.

6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.

7. (Law) A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.

The use of the word "knowledge" is pretty intrinsically tied to "meaning" except where it is measurable data, so 1 and 2 are "kinda both kinds". 3 and 5 are pretty classical information ignoring the fact that the specific definitions here refer to "collection" or "storage media" which means they are recordings of data that have to be interpreted, but I'll assume their just my (the observer's) recordings, and its my code so interpretation is not germaine. 4 is about communication, and communication is indeed covered by information theory (arguably, its the central issue!), its just usually stated in the form of energy transfer through fundamental forces, but verbal and written communication is only a simple abstraction up from that, although that does rear up the issue of interpretability that makes it "meaning". 6 combines two separate elements: information--"the numerical measure"--and a reference to the act of observing--"statistical uncertainty"--the later is mathematically deducible given enough data, and there's no meaning here until the word "uncertainty" is defined, where the meaning of a "standard deviation" is somewhat arbitrary to human's definition of mathematics. 7 is contains lots of information, but its really all about the meaning and interpretation of the information: the victim described an image to a sketch artist and the sketch looked like the perp to the cop. Was the perp the one who commited the crime? Amazing amounts of interpretation there...

 

Now the bottom line on your list is: they *all* have "information" in the information theory sense. Most of them are rife with interpretation problems due to the fact that they intermix the fuzzyness and subjectivity of the issue of "meaning."

 

So, I think your challenge here is to try to describe how there is a strict correllation between "information" and "meaning"--and I argue that the simple examples above disprove any correllation--or to come up with an independent and direct measure of the "amount of meaning"--although as I argue above, meaning is an interpretive function and cannot be done without agreements on meaning with the other participants.

 

Halfway between order and disorder,

Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, just my 2 cents worth. dna exists in all life. the information exists and can be readily

observed by any one of any etnicity. semantic, psuedo-logical arguments do not change this fact and are not germane to the basic issue. no one knows how it works or how it occurred, but it is observable and works quite well. if you would call this process by another name, what would it be?