Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Human Evil, Music, Logic, and Himalayan Dung Heaps

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When I was in college I studied classical piano with Istvan Nadas who was a Hungarian concert pianist and a student of Bela Bartok. Istvan was a miraculous survivor of one of Hitler’s death camps. The stories he told me still haunt me to this day.

The commandant of the death camp liked to play Bach over the loudspeaker system while he had random inmates shot or hung, just for fun and entertainment. Nadas told me about the horror of listening to Bach while he watched his fellow inmates being machine-gunned to death in front of him. Nadas told me, “I knew every note of that music and could play it on the piano, but I also knew that if they discovered I was a concert pianist they would break all my fingers so I could never play the piano again.”

Nadas’s death camp was eventually “liberated” by the Russians. Istvan was one of only 150 survivors from a camp of thousands. He weighed 90 pounds and was suffering from dysentery and other diseases. While the Russians were transporting him on a train to what he knew would be a Russian internment camp he managed to jump out of the train as it slowed in the mountains. Under machine-gun fire he fled into the trees, was helped my local residents, and was eventually smuggled by an African American GI under a tarp in the back of a jeep through Check Point Charlie.

Nadas eventually discovered that every member of his extended family had either been gassed or otherwise tortured and exterminated by the Nazis, or shot by the Russians, with one exception: his mother, whom he eventually tracked down in Italy after the war.

One evening, after a concert at the university while I was studying piano with Nadas, which was conducted by a guest “contemporary composer” — it was just a bunch of random cacophony, very painful to listen to, but sold as legitimate music — I asked Nadas what he thought.

“It is a Himalayan dung heap,” he replied. (Nadas spoke six languages fluently, and had a way with words.) This phrase stuck in my mind, and it’s the perfect description of something so obviously stupid that it represents a pile of crap of Himalayan proportions.

The students and faculty applauded the Himalayan-dung-heap “music” because no one had the courage to point out the obvious, except for Nadas.

This is a perfect metaphor for Darwinism. Very few people in academia have the courage to point out the cacophony and illogic of Darwinian speculation.

It takes the courage of someone like Nadas, who was willing to jump off a train in the mountains under machine-gun fire, to tell the obvious truth.

Comments
A faucet that goes drip drip drip is a boon to a man dying of thirst.Mung
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Have it your way Mung. Your argument is with people who call Shannon Entropy a measure of information, not with me.
At the very least, you could accept responsibility for your own arguments and not try to fob them off on some unspecified other people. My argument plainly is with you, in spite of your claim to the contrary. You are the one who is attempting to use Shannon's measure as a definition of information which you think then allows you to assert that there can be information which is devoid of any meaning, in spite of Shannon/Weaver's clear warning to the contrary. You and you alone are responsible for your actions, arguments and beliefs. Now if you were to come forth with a quote, or cite, saying that person x argues that Shannon information demonstrates that there can be information that is without meaning, you might have a point. But you have not done that. And the fact remains that I have repeatedly invited you to present a definition of information according to which information can be devoid of meaning. You have failed to do so. You said that I was "clearly wrong":
Both of us reject as relevant to this discussion any definition of information that does not include meaning. For some reason you are insisting that no-one has ever given such a definition. I’d say you are clearly wrong.
Who gave a definition of information according to which information so defined is devoid of meaning? Where is that definition published? Cites and quotes please. Again I raise the question of how it is logically possible to have two different definitions of information according to which in one case information has meaning and in the other case information has no meaning? What then, is information?Mung
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
An operational definition can also give criteria for establishing whether some categorical variable is present or absent.
What is the variable that we want to measure when it comes to creating an operational definition of a peanut butter sandwich?Mung
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
A nagging wife is like a faucet that goes drip, drip, drip.allanius
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Ilion:
… that silly phrase, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” is both false and thought-stultifying. So, naturally, DarwinDefenders are all over it. When people say and think that stupid phrase, they are overlooking or ignoring parts of the whole, generally the immaterial parts, such as information and work and development-over-time and so forth.
Well, I'm not. It's exactly what I'm referring to.Elizabeth Liddle
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Mung:
“The attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something … that produce specific effects.” http://www.merriam-webster.com.....nformation Now I ask you Elizabeth, does that sound like information that is devoid of meaning to you?
Of course it doesn't! It's why I offered it!
Information, to be information, must have meaning. It must be meaningful. There is no other kind of information.
Have it your way Mung. Your argument is with people who call Shannon Entropy a measure of information, not with me.Elizabeth Liddle
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
An operational definition can also give criteria for establishing whether some categorical variable is present or absent. As I said. One that allows you to measure the variable will of course also allow you to say whether it is present or absent. Shannon's definition does that - if there are 0 bits in the message, there is no information present, and if there are >0 bits in the message, there is information present.Elizabeth Liddle
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Bear in mind that an operational definition is one that allows you to measure the item in question.
Meaning what? What does it mean to have a measure of something? You were the one who referred me to the wikipedia entry. Does the following operational definition of a peanut butter sandwich give us a way to measure a peanut butter sandwich?
The operational definition of a peanut butter sandwich might be simply "the result of putting peanut butter on a slice of bread with a butter knife and laying a second equally sized slice of bread on top"
I think you have only one thing in mind when you say "operational definition" and an operational definition is not that restrictive. More later.Mung
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
“The attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something ... that produce specific effects.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information Now I ask you Elizabeth, does that sound like information that is devoid of meaning to you? Information, to be information, must have meaning. It must be meaningful. There is no other kind of information.Mung
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
Anyone have any problems with that one?
As long as you don't make the same mistake Meyer made and confuse the symbols or the sequence of symbols with information itself. :) Also, the effect is not produced by the symbols or sequence, the effect is produced by the information which is communicated.Mung
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
... that silly phrase, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" is both false and thought-stultifying. So, naturally, DarwinDefenders are all over it. When people say and think that stupid phrase, they are overlooking or ignoring parts of the whole, generally the immaterial parts, such as information and work and development-over-time and so forth.Ilion
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
What you said in @162, Mung, is what my point was in introducing the house.Ilion
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Ilion:
Rather, ‘Shannon Information’ is a measure-by-proxy (*) of the information necessary to reconstruct the message, regardless of whether the message itself represents information.
I like the way you put that. That's sort of what I was getting at with my talk in a previous thread about your house and what happens to the information in it if we tear it down. The information is not in the house. Information would be what it took to reconstruct the house. So when you build something, it takes information to do so, but that information does not get transferred into the thing constructed. But looking at a thing might possible provide some indication of the amount of information required to construct it.Mung
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
So, how about we go with Webster's (b) as suggested by Meyer? "The attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something ... that produce specific effects." Anyone have any problems with that one?Elizabeth Liddle
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Mung: "Shannon information is not a definition of information. God. It is a way to measure the amount of information in a message." Not exactly. True, it's not a definition of information; but it's also not "a way to measure the amount of information in a message." Rather, 'Shannon Information' is a measure-by-proxy (*) of the information necessary to reconstruct the message, regardless of whether the message itself represents information. (*) the proxy being the symbols necessary to represent the information being measured-by-proxy.Ilion
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
Mung, I'm going to wait until UPD has time and energy to take a look at my operationalisation of his criteria. You might take a look at it too, and see if you see a problem with it. Bear in mind that an operational definition is one that allows you to measure the item in question. Just like Shannon's definition does. But we aren't going to use that one, because none of us are very interested in a definition that doesn't incorporate the concept of meaning. OK?Elizabeth Liddle
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Mung: "Shannon information is not a definition of information, it is a measure of information. Is that concept so difficult to grasp?" Specifically, as formulated, it's a measure of the symbolic representation of some information about a message, which message may or may not represent some other information.Ilion
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Both of us reject as relevant to this discussion any definition of information that does not include meaning.
Well, now I'm confused. I would like to agree with you, but at the same time that you say this you've also been saying that there is such a thing as information devoid of any meaning. And you say there is information in the genome "“according to most definitions that I am aware of. But certainly according to the its meaning in general English usage.” And if there is in fact a definition of information in general English usage in which information can be devoid of any meaning then you are saying just that there can be information in the genome that is meaningless. So can you see the source of my confusion? I seem to be demanding that information in the genome have meaning, you don't.
For some reason you are insisting that no-one has ever given such a definition. I’d say you are clearly wrong.
I'm asking that you provide a definition of information from any English dictionary according to which definition of information, information can be seen to be devoid of any meaning. Until you do so, how can you assert that I am wrong?
Shannon information does not measure meaning. It does not care whether the message has meaning or not.
And yet you are arguing that Shannon information can tell you that a message is devoid of meaning. It cannot tell you that any more than it can tell you that a message has meaning. You cannot have it both ways.
See Meyer’s quote from Weaver above: “The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with meaning”. But this argument is silly.
The argument seems silly to you because you are doing exactly what that quote says you cannot do. Shannon information does not and cannot tell you that information is meaningless. And yet here you are arguing that you can have a meaningless string of characters and you can measure it using Shannon's measure and then reasoning that therefore there can be such a thing as information devoid of meaning. I have seen some bizarre arguments in my time and this one is right up there. If I am clearly wrong, if it is fact that case that information can exist which is devoid of any meaning, you should easliy be able to demonstrate that this is the case. All I ask is that you provide a dictionary reference. A definition of information, in which information, according to that dictionary definition, can be devoid of meaning. If you won't, then you have no reasonable basis upon which to assert that I am clearly wrong.
But it doesn’t matter because even if I am hallucinating Meyer’s cite of Weaver, or, possibly, Meyer was, or possibly we are all hallucinating Shannon, we aren’t going to use that definition here. OK?
Shannon information is not a definition of information. God. It is a way to measure the amount of information in a message. How could it possibly be a definiton of information if it can be used to define information as both having meaning and as being devoid of meaning? What kind of definition allows that? Particularly when we are told explicitly that "the word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with meaning”. So why are you confusing it with meaning? Do you really even know what you are saying? Let's recap your argument, it is as follows: Shannon information demonstrates that information can be devoid of meaning. Shannon information is a definition of information according to which information may be devoid of any meaning. That's what you are claiming, and it is absolutely irrational and without basis in fact.Mung
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Mung: "I ask again, are you aware of any definition of information which allows for the possibility that information may be devoid of meaning?" Elizabeth Liddle:
Shannon’s measure of information, as Meyer points out, has nothing to do with meaning.
Shannon information is not a definition of information, it is a measure of information. Is that concept so difficult to grasp? So I ask again yet, are you aware of any definition of information which allows for the possibility that information may be devoid of meaning?
Um, yes, it [Shannon information] does “measure meaningless information”. See above.
And from this you reason that information can be devoid of meaning and you don't see the fallacy in that line of reasoning? If you know the "information" is devoid of meaning, you do not know that because you measured it using Shannon's measure of information and found it to be devoid of meaning based upon that measure, right? But you're avoiding the question. The question was: [Keeping in mind that Shannon information does not define information but is rather a measure] are you aware of any DEFINITION OF INFORMATION which allows for the possibility that information may be devoid of meaning? Haul out your dictionary please, and go to work.Mung
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Mung: "What definition of information, according to the its meaning in general English usage, best exemplifies the information you think is present in the genome?" Elizabeth Liddle:
As I said, I can’t think of a definition that doesn’t. As I have also said, repeatedly, I agree that information is present in the genome, by any definition in English usage you care to give.
And I asked you to pick one. One that you thought best exemplifies the information that you think is present in the genome. Here's what I wrote: What definition of information, according to the its meaning in general English usage, best exemplifies the information you think is present in the genome? Just pick one. The one you think best applies. Please.Mung
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Mung @ 142
Elizabeth Liddle:
And for examples of general English usage I would give: “a repository of information such as a database”; “on the basis of that information, I have changed my course of action”; “thank you for your useful information”.
I don’t recall anyone asking you for examples. I think you were asked to provide a definition.
Here was the question: Elizabeth, what is the meaning of information according to general English usage? When someone asks, what does this word [information] mean, the typical response is to provide a definition. Another response is to give examples of usage. Indeed, dictionary definitions frequently do precisely this. So it’s what I did. If you want more dictionary definitions, look them up. Dictionaries record usage, they do not prescribe it.
Let’s review. Elizabeth Liddle: “I simply don’t think that the source of the information in the genome (and I agree there is information in the genome) is a great mystery.” Mung: “And what does she [Elizabeth Liddle] mean by information? Elizabeth Liddle: “According to most definitions that I am aware of. But certainly according to the its meaning in general English usage.” Mung: Elizabeth, what is the meaning of information according to general English usage? And your answer is? What definition of information, according to the its meaning in general English usage, best exemplifies the information you think is present in the genome?
As I said, I can’t think of a definition that doesn’t. As I have also said, repeatedly, I agree that information is present in the genome, by any definition in English usage you care to give. Mung @ 143
Meaningless Information Some people here seem to think that there can be information devoid of meaning. How someone can think this is a mystery to me, the very idea seems absurd. Elizabeth Liddle: Others say it [information] has to have meaning. As would any sane person. I ask again, are you aware of any definition of information which allows for the possibility that information may be devoid of meaning? Do tell.
I already told you, ages back. Shannon’s measure of information, as Meyer points out, has nothing to do with meaning. You even corrected me, IIRC on a typo, but I’ll type out Meyer’s example again:
As one of Shannon’s collaborators, Warren Weaver, explained in 1949, “The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with meaning”. Consider two sequences of characters: “Four score and seven years ago” “nenen ytawoi jll sn mekhdx nnx” Both these sequences have an equal number of characters. Since both are composed of the same 26-letter English alphabet, the amount of uncertainty eliminated by each letter (or space) is identical. The probability of producing each of those two sequences at random is identical. Therefore, both sequences have an equal amount of information according to Shannon’s theory.
You wrote:
Elizabeth Liddle:
Well, Shannon information can be meaningless. That is why I think it is a poor metric for the kind of information we are interested in.
You’re confused. Shannon information is a measure of information. It is not itself meaningless, nor does it measure “meaningless information,” for there is no such thing as information devoid of meaning.
Um, yes, it does "measure meaningless information". See above.
Shannon information, as a measure of information, is distinct from the meaning of a given message and does not concern itself with the meaning of the message, but this is not the same as saying it is a measure of information devoid of meaning.
Yes it is. A string can have plenty of Shannon information, but be meaningless. Shannon information does not measure meaning. It does not care whether the message has meaning or not. See Meyer's quote from Weaver above: “The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with meaning”. But this argument is silly. Both of us reject as relevant to this discussion any definition of information that does not include meaning. For some reason you are insisting that no-one has ever given such a definition. I'd say you are clearly wrong. But it doesn't matter because even if I am hallucinating Meyer's cite of Weaver, or, possibly, Meyer was, or possibly we are all hallucinating Shannon, we aren't going to use that definition here. OK? Mung @ 144
Elizabeth Liddle:
Until then, I can only conclude that the original claim, to which I made my counter claim, is untestable.
So your counter-claim was nonsense?
No, because I think it remains true for any definition of information.
You made your claim without knowing what you meant by information and without knowing how it could be generated by chance and necessity sans intelligence? And you want to blame us for your over-reach? Here are the facts. You made an absurd claim which you had no means to demonstrate.
No. My claim applies to all definitions of information IMO. So if you want to refute it, then supply the definition you want to refute.
Since that point, you have been engaged in nothing but coming up with excuses why you could not do what you claimed you could do.
This is not true.
Now, let us not also forget that the reason you felt the original claim was false was because you thought you could demonstrate the truth of your counter-claim. So now what is your reason for believing the original claim was false?
Well, I thought it referred to Dembski's Complex Specified Information, which is quite an interesting definition, and, again, no matter how you operationalise it, I think the claim is false. But obviously to demonstrate this to the satisfaction of the person making the original claim we have to agree on that operationalisation.
Is it because you cannot demonstrate the truth of your counter-claim?
No. But I'm not going to demonstrate it for non-agreed definitions of information, because then the counter-counter-claim could then be "well, that's not what we meant by information". My, the logic that must take. Well, for some reason it seems to be beyond you, which is odd, because you seem quite smart. Mung @145
Elizabeth Liddle:
The method I am attempting to use is what is usually called the “scientific method”, in which a crucial step is finding a way of measuring the thing-to-be-found or otherwise ascertaining its presence or absence. To do that we need what is called an “operational definition”.
And you think that all the material UPB has given you so far does not suffice? Why not?
Because serious ambiguities remain. UPB has not operationalised his definition. That isn't necessarily too serious as long as he gives enough conceptual clarity to allow me to write an operationalised definition of his conceptual definition. As I've said, I thought we were nearly there, then we hit a snag.
I am not at all clear what you mean by rejecting “the one proven method of finding the very thing she claims to be looking for”.
Another way to state that might be, “rejecting the one proven method of ascertaining the presence of the very thing she claims to be looking for.”
Gee thanks.
So we need a general criterion by which we can look at either a process, or an object, and say: this is information transfer/this contains information. Now, unlike Dembski, you have chosen to define information in terms of process, rather than product. I actually think this is sensible –
UPB has not given you that general criterion? You two have not worked it out together? Or did you do that, and you just didn’t like what it led to? So you rejected it.
It's kind of frustrating that you don't actually read my posts. Or don't seem to, anyway. Yes, he gave a criterion but it was variously expressed as "a break in the causal chain"; "a break in the physical chain" which was majorly problematic! However, I did have a shot anyway. As I've said a few times. I'm still waiting for Upright BiPed to comment on it, but obviously he has far more important concerns right now.
It’s not that I have any doubt that Nirenberg was finding “information” in the genome, nor about his methods for doing so – figuring out what mapped to what.
So there is a way to ascertain the presence of information?
Yes, I 'm sure there is, but what Nirenberg did was figure out what the information was.
It’s not that there is anything “admirable” about an operational definition, it’s just that if you are trying to detect the presence or absence of something, you need one.
Apparently not. Or you’re contradicting yourself.
No, I'm not.
ok, this post is getting too long. continuing later…
But UBP – if I don’t have an operational definition of information, then we can’t confirm its presence, and if we can’t confirm its presence, then I can’t support my claim! Nor can you consider it unsupported! Of course it’s not “irrelevant” – it’s absolutely vital!
If she cannot support her claim, you cannot consider her claim unsupported! Yes, she really did just say that!!! I am just flabbergasted. (Well, not really.)
I mean: I can't support my claim to your satisfaction, ya numpty! Mung @146
Upright BiPed:
You have thus far refused to acknowledge that one cannot logically be testing a falsification of an ID argument, while simultaneously claiming it doesn’t exist.
Elizabeth Liddle:
It’s a fair cop. In mitigation, I plead that I did not understand the charge. I do now. I did not mean what you thought I was saying, but as I now understand what you thought I was saying, I willingly clarify that I did not mean what you thought I meant.
ok, that had me rolling.
Cool. Sometimes I awe myself. Mung @147
Elizabeth Liddle:
It may be that someone here has a conceptual definition of information for which my claim is false.
It just keeps getting better and better.
It does doesn't it? Or are you failing to follow the logic again? Mung @148
Elizabeth Liddle:
Dembski does not deny that information (measured as Shannon Information, in bits) can be generated by Chance – his claim is that Complex Specified information cannot be (or is vanishingly unlikely to be).
How do you know that Dembski does not deny that information can be generated by Chance? Has he some where stated that to be the case? Please provide a cite or reference. Please. Thank you.
lol. Mung @149
Operational Definitions So let’s set a couple simple things on the table and see where it gets us. Lizzie agrees there is information present in the genome or in the process that takes place during the reading of DNA and the subsequent generation of a protein. It would be nice to figure out just where she thinks the information exists but I think we can leave that for later. In support of this observation I offer the following quote:
I simply don’t think that the source of the information in the genome (and I agree there is information in the genome) is a great mystery.
So this I think leads to a some very obvious questions. Elizabeth, why do you think there is information in the genome? What leads you to hold that belief?
OK. Well, let's take what I think is a pretty good conceptual definition from Webster, cited by Meyer: "The attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information?show=0&t=1311364153 Now, leaving aside the fact that Webster's actually mentions DNA, DNA clearly satisfies the definition - the arrangement of nucleotides produces specific effects - the production of a protein, for instance. However, we would not have to know which patterns produced which proteins to know that DNA contains information by that definition, because we also know that different alleles are associated with different phenotypes. We also knew, from Mendel, that something heritable contained information, because of his observed patterns of inheritance.
You’re not clear at all what you mean by information. Which definition of information do you have in mind?
As I've said, I think my claim holds for any.
You don’t have an operational definition of information yet you still think information exists in the genome. Why?
Mung, I could operationalise any conceptual definition and show that it exists in the genome. That's my point. But I'm not going to bother until I've agreed with at least one person here, that their definition has been satisfactorily operationalised. Obviously. Or I could just use Shannon and be done already.
It’s not that I have any doubt that Nirenberg was finding “information” in the genome, nor about his methods for doing so – figuring out what mapped to what.
How did they find it?
I don't know. I think they used radio tracers. It doesn't matter how they did it.
Either they had an operational definition or they did not need one. Which is it?
They were trying to find out what DNA coded for. AFAICT they started from the assumption that it coded for something, i.e. that it contained information. They set out to find out what it was and how it did it. They succeeded. Decoding a message is not the same thing as figuring out whether the thing is a message. They would certainly have required an operational definition of an amino acid. Mung @150
Elizabeth Liddle:
Dembski does not deny that information (measured as Shannon Information, in bits) can be generated by Chance – his claim is that Complex Specified information cannot be (or is vanishingly unlikely to be).
Febble (aka Elizabeth Liddle: His [Dembski's] reasoning appears to be as follows: he [Dembski] states: “Natural causes comprise chance and necessity” (citing Monod), and proceeds to rule out both chance and necessity as a source of information. HERE Why, Elizabeth, do you now believe that Dembski allows that information can be generated by Chance?
I should have said "Complex Specified Information". I think that is pretty clear from the context. If not, allow me to clarify now.
What have you read in the intervening period between then and now that makes you think he changed his mind (if anything)?
I don't think he's changed his mind very radically, although he does seem to have dropped much mention of Necessity. His 2005 talks only of Chance, and he has said that the EF (which has two filters - Chance and Necessity) is subsumed under his 2005 definition of CSI. Mung @151
Febble (aka Elizabeth Liddle): I have read a fair number of Dr. Dembski’s monographs and writings, although I have not read the book “No Free Lunch”. However, I have read his piece: Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm several times… Then surely you must have come across the following bit: Chance can generate complex unspecified information, and chance can generate non-complex specified information. What chance cannot generate is information that is jointly complex and specified. And yet you then go on to say: [Dembski] proceeds to rule out both chance and necessity as a source of information. You read it several times? Wow.
I should have said complex specified information. The kind he ruled out chance and necessity for.Elizabeth Liddle
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Mung re 152 Great book by one of my favorite authors. Nothing is No Thing and chance is nothing ( no thing). No thing (nothing) cannot be the cause of anything :) Vividvividbleau
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
William A. Dembski:
Chance can generate complex unspecified information, and chance can generate non-complex specified information. What chance cannot generate is information that is jointly complex and specified. - here
Sorry Bill, I have to disagree. The concept of unspecified information is incoherent. And chance cannot generate information. That's tantamount to saying noise can generate information, or chaos can generate information, except that chance is not a cause of anything and thus cannot be a cause of information. Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology I realize that piece is a bit dated so I'd like to know if you've changed your mind since then.Mung
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
Febble (aka Elizabeth Liddle):
I have read a fair number of Dr. Dembski’s monographs and writings, although I have not read the book “No Free Lunch”. However, I have read his piece: Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm several times...
Then surely you must have come across the following bit: Chance can generate complex unspecified information, and chance can generate non-complex specified information. What chance cannot generate is information that is jointly complex and specified. And yet you then go on to say:
[Dembski] proceeds to rule out both chance and necessity as a source of information.
You read it several times? Wow.Mung
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Dembski does not deny that information (measured as Shannon Information, in bits) can be generated by Chance – his claim is that Complex Specified information cannot be (or is vanishingly unlikely to be).
Febble (aka Elizabeth Liddle:
His [Dembski's] reasoning appears to be as follows: he [Dembski] states: "Natural causes comprise chance and necessity" (citing Monod), and proceeds to rule out both chance and necessity as a source of information. HERE
Why, Elizabeth, do you now believe that Dembski allows that information can be generated by Chance? What have you read in the intervening period between then and now that makes you think he changed his mind (if anything)?Mung
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Operational Definitions So let's set a couple simple things on the table and see where it gets us. Lizzie agrees there is information present in the genome or in the process that takes place during the reading of DNA and the subsequent generation of a protein. It would be nice to figure out just where she thinks the information exists but I think we can leave that for later. In support of this observation I offer the following quote:
I simply don’t think that the source of the information in the genome (and I agree there is information in the genome) is a great mystery.
So this I think leads to a some very obvious questions. Elizabeth, why do you think there is information in the genome? What leads you to hold that belief? You're not clear at all what you mean by information. Which definition of information do you have in mind? You don't have an operational definition of information yet you still think information exists in the genome. Why?
It’s not that I have any doubt that Nirenberg was finding “information” in the genome, nor about his methods for doing so – figuring out what mapped to what.
How did they find it? Either they had an operational definition or they did not need one. Which is it?Mung
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Dembski does not deny that information (measured as Shannon Information, in bits) can be generated by Chance – his claim is that Complex Specified information cannot be (or is vanishingly unlikely to be).
How do you know that Dembski does not deny that information can be generated by Chance? Has he some where stated that to be the case? Please provide a cite or reference. Please. Thank you.Mung
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
It may be that someone here has a conceptual definition of information for which my claim is false.
It just keeps getting better and better.Mung
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed:
You have thus far refused to acknowledge that one cannot logically be testing a falsification of an ID argument, while simultaneously claiming it doesn’t exist.
Elizabeth Liddle:
It’s a fair cop. In mitigation, I plead that I did not understand the charge. I do now. I did not mean what you thought I was saying, but as I now understand what you thought I was saying, I willingly clarify that I did not mean what you thought I meant.
ok, that had me rolling.Mung
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
The method I am attempting to use is what is usually called the “scientific method”, in which a crucial step is finding a way of measuring the thing-to-be-found or otherwise ascertaining its presence or absence. To do that we need what is called an “operational definition”.
And you think that all the material UPB has given you so far does not suffice? Why not?
I am not at all clear what you mean by rejecting “the one proven method of finding the very thing she claims to be looking for”.
Another way to state that might be, "rejecting the one proven method of ascertaining the presence of the very thing she claims to be looking for."
So we need a general criterion by which we can look at either a process, or an object, and say: this is information transfer/this contains information. Now, unlike Dembski, you have chosen to define information in terms of process, rather than product. I actually think this is sensible –
UPB has not given you that general criterion? You two have not worked it out together? Or did you do that, and you just didn't like what it led to? So you rejected it.
It’s not that I have any doubt that Nirenberg was finding “information” in the genome, nor about his methods for doing so – figuring out what mapped to what.
So there is a way to ascertain the presence of information?
It’s not that there is anything “admirable” about an operational definition, it’s just that if you are trying to detect the presence or absence of something, you need one.
Apparently not. Or you're contradicting yourself. ok, this post is getting too long. continuing later...
But UBP – if I don’t have an operational definition of information, then we can’t confirm its presence, and if we can’t confirm its presence, then I can’t support my claim! Nor can you consider it unsupported! Of course it’s not “irrelevant” – it’s absolutely vital!
If she cannot support her claim, you cannot consider her claim unsupported! Yes, she really did just say that!!! I am just flabbergasted. (Well, not really.) UPB, I applaud your patience. Wow. Continuing to remember you and your family.Mung
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 9

Leave a Reply