On The Calculation Of CSI

_{March 25, 2011

Intelligent Design, Mathematics}

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

My thanks to Jonathan M. for passing my suggestion for a CSI thread on and a very special thanks to Denyse O’Leary for inviting me to offer a guest post.

[This post has been advanced to enable a continued discussion on a vital issue. Other newer stories are posted below. – O’Leary ]

In the abstract of Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, William Demski asks “Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?” Many ID proponents answer this question emphatically in the affirmative, claiming that Complex Specified Information is a metric that clearly indicates intelligent agency.

As someone with a strong interest in computational biology, evolutionary algorithms, and genetic programming, this strikes me as the most readily testable claim made by ID proponents. For some time I’ve been trying to learn enough about CSI to be able to measure it objectively and to determine whether or not known evolutionary mechanisms are capable of generating it. Unfortunately, what I’ve found is quite a bit of confusion about the details of CSI, even among its strongest advocates.

My first detailed discussion was with UD regular gpuccio, in a series of four threads hosted by Mark Frank. While we didn’t come to any resolution, we did cover a number of details that might be of interest to others following the topic.

CSI came up again in a recent thread here on UD. I asked the participants there to assist me in better understanding CSI by providing a rigorous mathematical definition and showing how to calculate it for four scenarios:

A simple gene duplication, without subsequent modification, that increases production of a particular protein from less than X to greater than X. The specification of this scenario is “Produces at least X amount of protein Y.”
Tom Schneider’s ev evolves genomes using only simplified forms of known, observed evolutionary mechanisms, that meet the specification of “A nucleotide that binds to exactly N sites within the genome.” The length of the genome required to meet this specification can be quite long, depending on the value of N. (ev is particularly interesting because it is based directly on Schneider’s PhD work with real biological organisms.)
Tom Ray’s Tierra routinely results in digital organisms with a number of specifications. One I find interesting is “Acts as a parasite on other digital organisms in the simulation.” The length of the shortest parasite is at least 22 bytes, but takes thousands of generations to evolve.
The various Steiner Problem solutions from a programming challenge a few years ago have genomes that can easily be hundreds of bits. The specification for these genomes is “Computes a close approximation to the shortest connected path between a set of points.”

vjtorley very kindly and forthrightly addressed the first scenario in detail. His conclusion is:

I therefore conclude that CSI is not a useful way to compare the complexity of a genome containing a duplicated gene to the original genome, because the extra bases are added in a single copying event, which is governed by a process (duplication) which takes place in an orderly fashion, when it occurs.

In that same thread, at least one other ID proponent agrees that known evolutionary mechanisms can generate CSI. At least two others disagree.

I hope we can resolve the issues in this thread. My goal is still to understand CSI in sufficient detail to be able to objectively measure it in both biological systems and digital models of those systems. To that end, I hope some ID proponents will be willing to answer some questions and provide some information:

Do you agree with vjtorley’s calculation of CSI?
Do you agree with his conclusion that CSI can be generated by known evolutionary mechanisms (gene duplication, in this case)?
If you disagree with either, please show an equally detailed calculation so that I can understand how you compute CSI in that scenario.
If your definition of CSI is different from that used by vjtorley, please provide a mathematically rigorous definition of your version of CSI.
In addition to the gene duplication example, please show how to calculate CSI using your definition for the other three scenarios I’ve described.

Discussion of the general topic of CSI is, of course, interesting, but calculations at least as detailed as those provided by vjtorley are essential to eliminating ambiguity. Please show your work supporting any claims.

Thank you in advance for helping me understand CSI. Let’s do some math!

Comments

F/N: I pause to look at one of MG's scenarios:
A simple gene duplication, without subsequent modification, that increases production of a particular protein from less than X to greater than X. The specification of this scenario is “Produces at least X amount of protein Y.”
1 --> But, a gene DUPLICATION aint "simple"!
(Observe: "protein" implies a cellular context of functional processes that are tightly regulated and integrated, a la the infamous Biochemist's chart of cellular metabolic reactions. Talk about a Wicken wiring diagram well past the 1,000 yes/no decisions threshold!)
2 --> As the above implies, we are now also dealing with a regulatory process -- one that will have its own Wicken wiring diagram to lay out the architecture of the control loop process [cf examples here] -- that controls expression of the information in the genetic code. 3 --> So, let us ask, how do we get TO a "simple . . . duplication"? Or, more specifically, first, to the functional, controlled, regulated expression of genes and their replication when a cell divides? 4 --> ANS: By having a higher order regulatory network that responds to environmental and internal states and signals in a co-ordinated fashion. Thus, once we have gene duplication, we have already had something that regulates and expresses replication, which is itself going to be FSCI-rich, if the just linked diagrams are any indication. 5 --> That implied capacity, BTW VJT, is what seems to be pushing you over the threshold of CSI when you have such a duplication. 6 --> In other words the Dembski analysis is (correctly!) picking up that if lightning strikes the same unlikely place twice, something significant is happening. 7 --> Suppose the first protein coded for takes up say 600 bits [i.e. 300 bases, or 100 AA's]. 8 --> Doubling such a short protein would jump us to 1,200 functionally specific bits, and the crude, brute force "a cubit is the measure from elbow to fingertips" 1,000 bit threshold metric would pick this up as passing the FSCI threshold, on which the explanatory filter would point to design as best explanation. 9 --> In short, (i) lightning is hitting the same unlikely place twice, which implies (ii) a capacity to target that place by replicating, regulating expression, etc, and that (iii) this is so unlikely on chance plus bare mechanical necessity, that the best explanation is design. For, (iv) designers are known to do such duplications, and to set up regulatory systems that have counting loops that control how many times something is to be expressed or done: do until, do while etc. 10 --> Of course, if a counter point in the regulatory network suffers a simple mutation that triggered the double replication of the gene, that narrow outcome is well within the range of a chance event. 11 --> But that is not a pure chance event, it is within a highly complex island of function, and so we are looking at hill climbing within such an island. (Notice the centrality of this islands of function in wider config spaces concept. Where also the focus of design theory is how do we get to islands of function, not how we move around within such an island, except that hill climbing implies a deeper level of functional complexity to promote robustness and adaptability. That holds for the FSCI X-metric and it holds for the Durston et al FSC FITS metric and it holds for Dembski's CSI hot zone metric.) 12 --> So, by broadening the context from a protein molecule of say 100 AA's exists, which is within threshold -- so, just possibly by chance on the gamut of our cosmos, it could come about by chemistry, but of course without the cell's context, it is not functioning, it is just an unusual molecule -- to one where there is a duplication in a regulatory network, we have brought into focus a much wider set of complexity, that pushes us over the FSCI threshold. 13 --> In turn, that points to design as best explanation for the SYSTEM capable of that duplication. 14 --> This reminds me of the time I worked out and had to seriously reflect on the implications of the truth table (A AND B) => Q, namely that A => Q and/or B => Q. 15 --> Deeply puzzled [this is tantamount to saying that "Socrates is a Man" and/or "Men are Mortal" would INDEPENDENTLY imply "Socrates is Mortal"], I spoke with one of our budding mathematicians over in my next door neighbour Math Dept. 16 --> But of course, he said, blowing away my previous understanding that the interaction between the two premises was key to the syllogism. If men are mortal, Socrates is mortal. If Socrates is a man, he is mortal. (That is, the Maths was implicitly capturing a deeper reality than I had spotted.) 17 --> So, I came away with a deeper respect for the math, and a higher confidence in it. 18 --> The tickler? I was led to do the particular analysis, both by truth tables and by the Boolean Algebra, because of a theological issue over interpretation of a particular verse in the NT which in effect is of form (A AND B) => Q. 19 --> So, the deeper yet lesson is that reality -- on abundant experience as well as the implication of the key first principles of right reason being models of reality -- is a unified whole, and if we are capturing that reality in our models, we may be surprised by deeper connexions. But, we should respect them. 20 --> So, MG's tickler case no 1 points to a deeper set of connexions, and the crude, brute force FSCI criterion and metric comes up trumps. ____________ Back to my main order of business . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 27, 2011
March
03
Mar
27
27
2011
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

#294 PAV I’ve just done a word-check in the “Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence.” (It is “specified complexity” that is detailed.) It doesn’t appear. So, actually, it is IMPOSSIBLE to give a “rigorous mathematical definition” of CSI based on the paper. Pav - a word check is hardly sufficient. Read (and understand) the addendum Note to Readers or TDI & NFL which begins: "Readers familiar with my books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch will note that my treatment of specification and specified complexity there (specificity, as such, does not appear explicitly in these books, though it is there implicitly) diverges from my treatment of these concepts in this paper. The changes in my account of these concepts here should be viewed as a simplification, clarification, extension, and refinement of my previous work, not as a radical departure from it. To see this, it will help to understand what prompted this new treatment of specification and specified complexity as well as why it remains in harmony with my past treatment." Whatever you want to call it, this is clearly an attempt to mathematically define the quantity that is supposed to the hallmark of design by the foremost theoretician in the ID world. It may not have the exact label "CSI" but the concept is meant to play the same role and supersede the definition of CSI in NFL.markf_{March 27, 2011
March
03
Mar
27
27
2011
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

I notice that Mathgrrl has not returned, and that she has yet to demonstrate her calculating prowess. Until she gets her hands dirty with some raw numbers, and attempts to perform some real calculations, I shall remain skeptical of her claim to be mathematically proficient. vj. Her mathematical prowess is irrelevant. The challenge to show how you can calculate CSI is the same challenge whoever makes it. What do you want her to do - a maths exam?markf_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

I'm a visitor here, so perhaps I'm not familiar with the conventions of this blog. But if this were a physics blog and an Aristotelian asked how to calculate the position of an object from its motion, I wouldn't expect the respondents to spend time arguing about the motives of the poster, or whether objects remain in motion or naturally come to rest -- I'd expect someone to simply post: y = x + vt + 1/2at**2 where: y = final position x = initial position v = initial velocity a = acceleration t = time If an alchemist asked on a chemistry blog how one might calculate the pressure of a gas, one wouldn't argue about the nobility of gold or the Philosopher's Stone -- one would simply post: p=(NkT)/V where: p = absolute pressure of the gas N = number of gas molecules k = Boltzmann's constant T = temperature of the gas V = volume of the gas And if a young-earth creationist asked on a biology blog how one can determine the relative frequencies of the alleles of a gene in a population, one wouldn't argue about the literal interpretation of Genesis -- one would simply post: p² + 2pq + q² = 1 where: p = population frequency of allele 1 q = population frequency of allele 2 These are examples of clear, detailed ways to calculate values, the kind of equations that practicing scientists uses all the time in quotidian research. Providing these equations allows one to make explicit quantitative calculations of the values, to test these values against the real world, and even to examine the variables and assumptions that underlie the equations. Is there any reason the same sort of clarity cannot be provided for CSI?Tulse_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

Okay, let me see if I understand this correctly. PaV has asserted that Dembski has "in a sense" abandoned CSI (something that posters in this thread have been vigorously trying to defend) in favor of "specified complexity". So, is there some way to calculate it (specified complexity) for the examples MathGrrl has cited? If not, it doesn't help the cause very much at all. And yes, there "is something wrong with this" if you cannot adequately and consistently describe something. Just having an intuitive idea of "what CSI should look like" (wait, didn't we abandon that term?) isn't going to stand up to scrutiny.Muramasa_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

Hi everyone, This will definitely be my last post on this lengthy thread, as it is taking too long for me to bring it up on my PC. Markf has raised some substantive points regarding specified complexity in his most recent post. I will be arguing in a forthcoming post that he has misunderstood Dembski's argument on pages 18-19 of his paper. More of that anon. Regarding gene duplication, here's an excellent blog post by Casey Luskin on why gene duplication doesn't increase CSI: Jonathan Wells Hits an Evolutionary Nerve . I would urge everyone who is interested ingene duplication and CSI to read it. See also A Response to Dr. Dawkins' "The Information Challenge" http://www.discovery.org/a/4278 The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Citation Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information http://www.discovery.org/a/14251 Regarding ev, PaV has already shown that it is incapable in principle of breaching Dembski's Universal Probability Bound, so I think we can all agree it does not present a real challenge. I notice that Mathgrrl has not returned, and that she has yet to demonstrate her calculating prowess. Until she gets her hands dirty with some raw numbers, and attempts to perform some real calculations, I shall remain skeptical of her claim to be mathematically proficient. Jemima Racktouey (JR) complains that CSI cannot be calculated for an arbitrary system. Talk about shifting goalposts! First the complaint was that we couldn't calculate specified complexity for anything biological. I replied by doing a calculation for the bacterial flagellum. Then the complaint was that it could only be calculated for one biological system, and not for other irreducibly complex systems. I replied by generously giving Mathgrrl a long list of 40 irreducibly complex systems, together with their descriptions, as well as the numbers required to calculate the specified complexity Chi for ATP synthase. I invited her to finish the calculation. She still hasn't done so. And now the complaint from JR is that we can't calculate specified complexity for anything and everything! Many meaningful mathematical quantities are not computable by a single algorithm or set of algorithms. JR should know that. That does not render them meaningless. Specified complexity is a meaningful quantity which (as I showed in my example of the Precambrian smiley face) can be calculated for a variety of objects). I conclude that some critics of CSI and specified complexity are making unreasonable demands which ID proponents should not waste their time on. Other more sincere critics have genuine questions that can be addressed on another thread. That's what I'll attempt to do in my next thread.vjtorley_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

Excellent response PaV ;)TheForthcoming_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

Jemima: "If by “pelting questions” you mean the repeated requests to provide a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI then that’s the purpose of this thread." No it's not. CSI belongs to Bill Dembski. He provided a rigorous definition of CSI in NFL. What MathGrrl has done is asked a trick question. CSI does not appear in the Specification: The Pattern that Signifies Intelligence. In that paper, Dembski moves away from "bits" per se, and comes up with a number that can be negative, positive, and an indicator of SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY---not CSI--if it's greater than one. So, MathGrrl's question is not a question. It's a demand for a demonstration, and nothing less. As I demonstrated above, she has not understood what a specification is or else she would have provided different characterizations of the "patterns" involved in these EA programs. The only one that she provided that fit the description of a pattern is for the ev program. In the ev program you have, all told, 260 binary digits in the output ( I now have a copy of Schneider's paper). 2^260 = approx. 10^100. This is below the "static" UPB ("static" per the Specification paper), and hence possible due to chance occurrences. But, of course, there are all kinds of other problems with the program---as pointed out in the papers of Truman and Dembski that I've cited. Muramasa:
Onlookers: If I may summarize this thread: 1) Supporters of ID are not able to calculate CSI, though they claim it to be easy to do. 2) When asked repeatedly to do so, they attempt to change the subject. 3) Supporters of ID cannot even agree on how to define CSI.
As to 1): But I did calculate the complexity of the ev program. It was very easy. And it fell short of the UPB. This was the only program for which MathGrrl provided a proper "specification" (although she used N, as if the output bit length could be any size whatsoever when, in fact, she ought to have known full well that N in the ev program was 260 binary digits. And, QUITE FRANKLY, the answer to her request is that if she wants a rigourous definition of CSI then she should read NFL; and, if any questions remain, then she should email Bill Dembski. The only person in the ID world providing mathematical definitions of CSI is Bill Dembski. She should have known this from the beginning. She didn't want us to give a "rigorous mathematical definition" of CSI, she wanted us to tear apart the programs and assess it using the notions of CSI. Why should I be expected to respond to such a request on my time and energy. Am I some kind of paid consultant? Is she Secretary of State, or the IRS Commissioner, and if I don't do it, I'll end up in big trouble? She seems like a big girl. Let her do the hard work if she's so interested. 2) We can calculate it. But it is a very labor and time intensive operation. Why are we supposed to make this calculation? Why isn't she expected to show that she understands CSI and demonstrate that understanding by, herself, anaylzing these programs. If she came up with something disproving CSI, THEN, and ONLY THEN would it be incumbent upon the ID community to rebut her findings. Let her go first. I've got better things to do. As it is, I've wasted more time on this post than I care to think about. I've got Schneider's paper and am reading it. It's a big waste of time. Why? Because there isn't any CSI there. And that ALWAYS proves to be the case with EA programs. 3) Even Bill Dembski can't "agree" on a definition of CSI. He no longer is using it, in a sense. He now is using "specified complexity". Others here at UD want to stick directly in the "information" area and have our own intuitive ideas of what CSI should look like, and what we should be looking for in biological systems. Is there something wrong with this? Let me tell you what, Murmasa, you go buy a copy of No Free Lunch, read it, understand it, and then come back here and demonstrate that you understand CSI, and then we'll take your criticisms seriously.PaV_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped, Boy, I'm not making myself clear, am I? I thought you were saying something like "it wouldn't matter if you could explain the origin of this or that complex system (for example, the flagellum) as long as you can't explain the origin of biological information in the first place." I take that to be Joseph's position (as far as I understand it), and I thought it was implied in the passage from you I quoted above.QuiteID_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: If I may summarize this thread: 1) Supporters of ID are not able to calculate CSI, though they claim it to be easy to do. 2) When asked repeatedly to do so, they attempt to change the subject. 3) Supporters of ID cannot even agree on how to define CSI.Muramasa_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

By the way JR, I didn't make my objection on this thread without explaining what the observation was about. If you'd like to know, then you are welcome to read it.Upright BiPed_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

A shout to MH before I take off. Hey Mike - I'm impressed with your choice of books. JR, no offense intended, but the questions you are asking tell me you don't understand how the issue I raised relates to the topic of the thread. CheersUpright BiPed_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Upright, What are the limits of ID/evolution then? KF has previously suggested that the bodyplan of a cow is beyond the capability of evolution to generate and therefore must have been designed, do you agree or disagree with that view?JemimaRacktouey_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Upright,
I can’t think of a reason why evolution wouldn’t be possible.
Do you agree CSI can be generated by known evolutionary mechanisms. E.G gene duplication.JemimaRacktouey_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

QID, My repsonse to you was not snarky. I gave you my answer. Evolution would be in action. I don't know why you ask the question. Are you suggesting some sort of line of demarcation. You are free to make that case if you wish. But if you implying that if ID should recognize a requirement for the origin of Life, then the rest of biology is off-limits, then I disagree, but more than just disagree, I don't get it. No offense.Upright BiPed_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

Upright,
with a demonstrated refusal to address certain issues.
Issues which you would like to raise but which are not necessarily within the scope of the OP. So perhaps it's not surprising those issues don't get addressed to your satisfaction.
Then you don’t understand the difference between the input and the output.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But I'll wait and see what MathGrrl has to say.
You still have questions of whether CSI even exist? You do realize don’t you that you are creating CSI in order to pose the question?
How do you know I'm creating it if you don't know how to measure it? If you don't know how to measure it how can you be sure it's there at all? If CSI is present in the messages I'm creating then it's present in the parasites that evolve in one of the examples given in the OP. And the challenge is can you measure it as well as simply claim it obviously exists? As per the OP. Can you? Can anyone?JemimaRacktouey_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped [301], my question was serious, though your answer was mainly snark. Let me restate: your earlier comment suggested that you think anything after the establishment of the "symbol system" at the beginning of life is irrelevant to ID. Am I correct in that characterization? Joseph seems to have the same view, though he uses different terms.QuiteID_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

#298
until it’s been shown that CSI can be determined for an arbitrary system in an objective way then your questions are, I believe, premature.
Then you don't understand the difference between the input and the output.Upright BiPed_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

QID asks if "all evolution is possible after the origin of life?" I can't think of a reason why evolution wouldn't be possible. And I can't think of a reason why anyone should be prohibited from studying it.Upright BiPed_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

I'm trying to understand all of this. MathGrrl asked for a demonstration of the math behind CSI (as defined by Dr Dembski). I too would like to see the math.critter_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

#293 1) You are correct, the "purpose of this thread" has certainly unfolded, along with a lack of rigorous rebuttal, and with a demonstrated refusal to address certain issues. 2) What is the ultimate purpose? I take her at her word, do you suggest I do otherwise? 3) Secret agengy, Orwellian manifesto, conspiracy theory? My comments specifically pertain to this thread. 4) You still have questions of whether CSI even exist? You do realize don't you that you are creating CSI in order to pose the question? Here's one for ya - CSI is as real as Gravity. 5) No, I admitted nothing of the sort. Slow down. By the way, your suggestion would mean that any questions raised can be classified as as failure to answer. Nothing could survive, ever, if that is the case. 6) You need to concentrate on the evidence, not on me.Upright BiPed_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Upright
My comment was obviously unwelcomed, as evidenced by the fact that she did not attempt to address it in any meaningful way.
I guess it never occurred to you that it might simply have been off topic, irrelevant or simply tangential to the issue at hand. CSI can either be calculated for an arbitrary system or not and once that has been determined then perhaps your points will take on more relevance then. But until it's been shown that CSI can be determined for an arbitrary system in an objective way then your questions are, I believe, premature. As I already noted, you want to have your cake and eat it. First we have to prove the cake exists.JemimaRacktouey_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

KF,
Functional specificity is an observable. Complexity can be identified using a threshold. And specific quantum orf relevant information meeting these criteria can be identified using the basic metric, the bit.
Surely it would be more instructive to put your obviously extensive knowledge of CSI into use and actually address the request in the original post rather then talk about how easily it could be done if only you were to choose to do so?
That is why I have asked MG to answer: were Orgel and Wicken “meaningless”?
And yet again we see distractions strewn into the air like blazing straw men. Why does the ability to calculate CSI depend on MG's answers to your questions? Whatever the answer it cannot affect your ability to perform a calculation that everybody here seems to think can be done but nobody can actually do.
When we can see the point of a simple, crude, brute force model and metric, then we can profitably progress to more complex cases.
Ah, so you have to see the "point of it" before you'll perform the calculations? Seems it would be easier just do do it and move the thread on.
So, MG: were or were not O & W “meaningless” when they spoke of specified complexity and wiring diagram based functional organisation?
Whatever the answer, will you then be able to calculate CSI for the examples given? If not then what is the purpose of your question except to shift the conservation to grounds that you feel strong on? Why do you feel the need to define the acceptable boundaries of every debate you partake in? Can't you stick to the topic of the thread rather then add your distractions and rabbit trail questions? If you can't calculate CSI for the examples given them I'm sure that there are other threads where your pseudo scientific smokescreen (I've read some of your website) will not be pierced so simply as it has been here by the simple fact you've been unable to perform the relevant calculations and instead have given every reason under the sun as to why it's the wrong question in the first place to be asking and furthermore that you have the right questions to ask and those questions need to be answered by MG. So in fact MG should not even have considered coming here and asking for what everybody claims is easily done and should have consulted you first KF before even thinking to ask such irrelevant questions. Luckily you don't run the world.JemimaRacktouey_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

JemimaRacktouey: What’s the “production history” behind the bacterial flagellum? DNA? And splicesomes, and ribosomes, etc. However, one can correlate the proteins found in the bacterial flagellum with its DNA. It maps. Information is only information if it can be translated. Most biological structures, but not all, can be translated from DNAPaV_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

If your issue has nothing to do with mathematics, you're raising it in the wrong thread. Although it does seem from all other comments that CSI is either not sufficiently well defined or too difficult to calculate to be of any use in determining agency.smokesignals_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped, An associate professor? Where did she say that? I must have missed something. Can you clarify this for me?
If the EA does not establish the mapping of those represenations, then it must rely on those relationships to be a pre-existing quality. If they are a) a pre-existing quality, and b) are critical to the existence of the information, then c) what is critical to the existence of the information is a pre-existing quality of the input. Therefore, whatever information is contained in the output of an EA does not owe its existence to the EA, but to the symbol system required at the input.
Doesn't that suggest that all evolution is possible after the origin of life, and that anything after the basic symbols of the genetic code were established is none of ID's business? Or am I reading too much into that?QuiteID_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

I've just done a word-check in the "Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence." (It is "specified complexity" that is detailed.) It doesn't appear. So, actually, it is IMPOSSIBLE to give a "rigorous mathematical definition" of CSI based on the paper. Was that the game you were playing all the time, MathGrrl?PaV_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Upright,
The question is why is she here pelting persons (to whom she must know very well are not mathematicians) with a loaded set of questions,
If by "pelting questions" you mean the repeated requests to provide a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI then that's the purpose of this thread. And those questions may or may not be loaded, but they were so loaded with the permission and support from some of the owners of this blog and and such perhaps addressing them on their face would be one way to proceed.
while at the same time avoiding taking any questions which might impact the ultimate conclusion she is so obviously desperate to make?
And what "ultimate conclusion" do you have in mind here? Has it ever occurred to you that there is no secret agenda, that there is no "ultimate conclusion", no Orwellian manifesto? That all is being asked is what has been claimed to exist all along? Regardless of any of your supposed "ultimate" conclusions. Why don't you just try playing the game and drop the conspiracy theory aspect?
then it hardly is of any consulation to be forced to admit that CSI still requires that ellusive embodiment of meaning (the semiotic convention) which has not been observed coming into existence by anything other means than a mind.
Is it not irrelevant if CSI still requires a semiotic convention if CSI cannot be quantified nor even be shown to exist in the first place? And you seem to be admitting here that CSI cannot be calculated for an arbitrary system, which is some sort of progress I suppose. And once again your coin has two heads. Heads, CSI can be calculated, you win. Tails CSI cannot be calculated but you know it exists and in any case it has not been observed coming into existence by anything other means than a mind, and therefore you win again.JemimaRacktouey_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

#282 "The objections so far seem somewhat different, e.g. Uprights demand that MathGrrl answers his questions first." It has been made perfectly clear that my issue with Mathgrrl has been from the start a singular issue - one having nothing to do with the mathematics. She states that an EA can create information. The information she is discussing is information which is instantiated in a system of chemical representations (symbols). Without those representations, the information ceases to exist. If the EA does not establish the mapping of those represenations, then it must rely on those relationships to be a pre-existing quality. If they are a) a pre-existing quality, and b) are critical to the existence of the information, then c) what is critical to the existence of the information is a pre-existing quality of the input. Therefore, whatever information is contained in the output of an EA does not owe its existence to the EA, but to the symbol system required at the input. Given that neither she nor anyone else has provided any reasoning which would refute this most obvious point, I stand by it. And after once again bringing this to Mathgrrl's attention, I suggested (more than 250 posts ago) that her conclusion was therefore either "a) false, or b) over-reaching, or c) incomplete". My comment was obviously unwelcomed, as evidenced by the fact that she did not attempt to address it in any meaningful way. Her response came in three pieces. The substance of her first comment was as follows:
No one else has defined CSI with any degree of mathematical rigor, let alone provided any example calculations.
You will notice that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of my comment. It also has nothing to do with modifying her conclusion to more accurately reflect the reality pointed out above. This is simply a maneuver on her part to control the conversation. Her second comment was as follows:
Darned if I know, it really depends on the exact definition of “information”, “complex specified information” in this case.
This comment was intended as a response to the question of whether or not the EA establishes the symbol system or relies on it at the input - and to this (the most basic of observations) she says "Darned if I know". Frankly, I have a hard time believing that, and indeed, taking her at her word only makes her look silly. Apparently she understands this as well, otherwise, she would not have been forced to deflect it with utterly detached questions about how to define information. Her final comment is nothing less than to simply ignore what was said, and to re-assume control of the conversation:
Would you please define CSI with some mathematical rigor and demonstrate how to calculate it for the four scenarios I detailed in the original post?
So in her three repsonses we see that she has no intention whatsoever in addressing this critical issue. Her only interest is in driving to a conclusion which has already been shown to be either false, over-reaching, or incomplete. Perhaps Mathgrrls's openly demonstrated obstinance and her patent controlling of the conversation could explain the dynamics of this thread. In that regard I'd like to point out another issue. Without any doubt, two of the most amazingly patient contributors to UD are GPuccio and Vincent Torely. Second-string contributors like myself are a joke in comparison. GPuccio is a medical practitioner in Italy, and VJ has a PhD in Philosophy living and working in Japan. I note that in comment 217 (given a chance to read further into the thread) even VJ has noticed the dynamics involved. He states:
I can see plenty of breezy, confident assertions along the lines of “Yes, I’ve read that paper,” but so far, NOT ONE SINGLE EQUATION, and NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF RIGOROUS MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENTATION from you. Instead, you’ve let us do all the mathematical spadework, while you’ve done nothing but critique it on general, non-technical grounds. This is highly suspicious.
For regular readers of UD, one has to wonder what it takes to get VJ to "call out" anyone. Yet here he is, having sensed something is not right. VJ appareantly wants a check of bona fides, but (ostensibly) our guest is an associate Prof in Mathematics, so I am certain she can handle the numbers. The question is why is she here pelting persons (to whom she must know very well are not mathematicians) with a loaded set of questions, while at the same time avoiding taking any questions which might impact the ultimate conclusion she is so obviously desperate to make? I would submit to VJ and anyone else to take a rather organic view of the conversation. What is the #1 issue? It is the conclusion, not the math. If it were about the math then Mathgrrl would have been giving rigourous mathematical rebuttals (as VJ points out) and she would be doing in front of mathematicians. It is her conclusion which is being protected. It is being protected from observations like the one I offered, as well as others. After all, if your goal is to make the connection (as has already been said or implied) "CSI has been refuted - ID is about CSI - ID has been refuted", then it hardly is of any consulation to be forced to admit that CSI still requires that ellusive embodiment of meaning (the semiotic convention) which has not been observed coming into existence by anything other means than a mind. Finally, if anyone is deluded into thinking that ID is premised on the level of mathematical rigor that can be applied to CSI (particularly in regard to satifying the personable belief system of an implaccable opponent) they know nothing at all about ID. Cheers...Upright BiPed_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, A clarifying question, if you will: isn't Orgel's use of specified complexity pretty much qualitative? That is, although Dr. Dembski's use of the term certainly descends from Orgel ("evolves," perhaps? :-)), his own mathematicization of the term takes it in a different direction. I have an easy time believing the qualitative reality of the term but a hard time understanding the mathematical models.QuiteID_{March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply