Simply Not Credible

_{Gil Dodgen

September 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

This thread inspired the following observations.

The bottom line is that none of Dawkins’ computer programs have any relevance to biological evolution, because of this in WEASEL1:
Target:Text=’METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL’;
and this in WEASEL2:
WRITELN(’Type target phrase in capital letters’);
READLN(TARGET);

which allows the user to enter the “target” phrase. No search is required, because the solution has been provided in advance. These programs are just hideously inefficient means of printing out what could have been printed out when the program launched. The information for the solution was explicitly supplied by the programmer. Once this is recognized, further conversation about the relevance of the programs to biological evolution is no more illuminating than conjecture about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

The bottom line is that the proposed Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection makes no sense on its face, as an explanation for the kinds of highly sophisticated information-processing engineering we see in living systems. It is a claim that an inherently entropic process can produce unlimited neg-entropic results, from the lowest to the highest levels (the cell to the piano concerti of Rachmaninoff). The magic wand of “deep time” (which is not very deep in terms of probabilistic resources) cannot be waved to make this transparent lunacy believable.

The Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for all of life is simply not credible. Most people have enough sense to recognize this, which is why the consensus “scientists” — with all their prestige, academic credentials, and incestuous self-congratulation — are having such a hard time convincing people that they have it all figured out, when they obviously don’t.

Comments

CJYMan @ 147 & 148, We may be understanding the terms "create", "generate", "from scratch", etc. differently, so let me use other terms. Are you floating the idea that intelligence can increase the amount of active info, but not increase it from zero? Or are you saying that, according to the LCI, intelligence can't actually increase the amount of active info? Or are you saying something else? Here's my understanding: D&M claim that, according to the LCI, nature cannot increase the amount of active info. And they claim that intelligence is not like nature in this respect. Is that your understanding as well? If so, then my point is that D&M, as well as kairosfocus, have not justified the claim that intelligence can increase the amount of active information. And they can't demonstrate it using their accounting method until they present and justify a principled way to define the higher-order space.R0b_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

ROb: "So D&M need to present and justify a non-arbitrary way for defining the higher-order space, such that F is closed under permutation for nature but not for intelligence. Until they do so, their claim that intelligence creates active info, while nature does not, is unfounded." It depends on what you mean by "create." Obviously, if humans and their intelligence is a part of an evolutionary scheme, then they are the result of previous active info. Similarly, a human intelligence can only produce information that he has gained through learning ... another instance of information combination and transfer. So, yes, human intelligence is required for the generation of certain patterns and further active info. However, active information existed before human intelligence. So, we have a little loop here ... active info -- intelligence -- active info -- intelligence Now, what is active info. It is merely a measurement of a deviation from a uniform search space and the matching of a search procedure with that search space. So, where does a search space come from? If it comes from a chance assemblage of law, there is no reason to suppose that the space will be anything other than uniform -- it is the result of chance/randomness after all. Furthermore, the matching of search space to search algorithm is just as improbable as the targets that matching produces, given a uniform probability distribution. So, given only law and chance, it is just as improbable for a brain to randomly self-organize out of its constituent materials as it is improbable for the evolutionary pathway which finds the brain to also randomly be generated. So, you ask, what is the difference between intelligence and law+chance. Intelligence has a component that law+chance does not possess. That is foresight. An intelligent system operates by modeling the future, generating a target (based on information available), and then engineering a pathway to that target. Law+chance on the other hand, only operates by, you guessed it ... law+chance. "Law" describes an algorithm which produces mathematically describable regularities and "chance" describes statistically random, unspecified patterns. So, the answer to your question is that, as far as I understand, there is no justification necessary. Active info is merely a measurement taken from a base of a uniform probability distribution -- a base which is defined by chance. Their claim is based on how intelligence operates as opposed to how law+chance operates, and the observed capabilities of each.CJYman_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

ROb: “Cumulative selection, as Dawkins uses the term, can act with or without a long-term target.” Evidence please. I propose that Darwinian evolution (if defined as cumulative selection without a target) does not exist.
I'm not talking about Darwinian evolution, I'm talking about Dawkins' usage of the term "cumulative selection". His usage applies to cases in which selection is based on immediate criteria as well as cases in which selection is based on a long-term target. My evidence is the description of the term that I quoted from Dawkins, which applies to both cases. This was in response to niwrad's statement the cumulative selection has no target, and that a simulator of cumulative selection must not have a target. [Sidenote: WEASEL is an instance of cumulative selection, not a simulation of it.]
No, not targets divorced from teleology.
According to my understand of D&M's terminology, a target that is purposed by a telic agent is an extrinsic target. If that's correct, then intrinsic targets must not be purposed by a telic agent.R0b_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

ROb: "but their argument for ID is based on the assumption that information is in fact created by intelligence." ... you mean observation that intelligence is required for the generation of active info and that law and chance absent an intelligent system has never been shown to generate active info. Their assumption that intelligence actually creates active info is not the actual basis for the argument that intelligence is a necessary condition for the generation of active info.CJYman_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

ROb #145, The two options re: active info is the infinite regress or we can place intelligence on the same level as matter and energy and say that all active info measured from that point on resulted from that first intelligent system. The main point is that intelligence is a necessary cause of active info. Whether the intelligence "creates it from scratch" or not is another question. To say that all active info results from the first intelligent system, which is as fundamental as matter and energy, still doesn't necessarily equate with that intelligence creating active info "from scratch" since that intelligence itself, if it indeed requires some sort of sufficient organization not defined by law or chance as intelligence has indeed been observed to require, would be measurable in terms of active info. IOW, it takes the measure of active info associated with itself and transforms that into the rest of the active info and CSI that we observe. But, of course that is only one option. It could be that the original intelligence does indeed generate active info from scratch in a process that we don't yet understand ... may have something to do with consciousness ... who knows?? So there are different options to consider as to "how" intelligence is the source of active information, but the point still stands that, barring an infinite regress, active information requires intelligence.CJYman_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

CJYMan @ 124:
A simple answer to “What is the higher-order search space?” is … “That system of law and chance which caused our universal laws, initial and boundary conditions.”
When I asked kf that question, I was referring to the higher-order search space in his example of someone writing a program. It needs to be defined explicitly in order to determine whether the LCI holds or information is created. So how do we define the higher-order space? D&M don't answer that question explicitly, but they offer three examples in their three Conservation of Information (COI) theorems, which we can examine mathematically. (Pardon the obscure math that follows.) In each example, they define the higher-order space as a set F of functions f : Ω -> Z, where Z is different in each example. In their function-theoretic COI, Z is an alternate space Ω'. In their measure-theoretic COI, Z is the set of possible probability values (real numbers from 0 to 1). And in their fitness-theoretic COI, Z is a set of fitness values. Given a higher-order space consisting of a set of functions F, here is a key observation: If F is closed under permutation, and if the higher-order search over F is blind, then the combined search over Ω is also blind.* From this observation, it can be shown through simple math that the LCI holds for any case in which F is closed under permutation. Since D&M always define F such that it's closed under permutation, the LCI holds in all of their examples. So D&M need to present and justify a non-arbitrary way for defining the higher-order space, such that F is closed under permutation for nature but not for intelligence. Until they do so, their claim that intelligence creates active info, while nature does not, is unfounded. * l use the term blind to indicate that a selection is uniformly random. I use the term combined search to denote the end-to-end process of first selecting a search, and then using that search to search for the target.R0b_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

CJYman @ 123:
Are you saying that you dispute what kf just pointed out?
Actually kairosfocus was declaring as fact the claim that I challenged in 109, namely, "Every evo simulation and every GA composed by programmers stands in the other column as empirical evidence that mind creates active info."
I agree with that statement fully. It may be that intelligent systems do not generate information either.
I'm glad we're in agreement on that. But M&D's LCI-based argument for ID is that active information, including the active info manifest in evolution, was ultimately created by intelligence. They make the claim repeatedly here. For instance:
Likewise, the LCI Regress, as noted in the last bullet point, suggests that intelligence is ultimately the source of the information that accounts for successful search.
and
Nature is a matrix for expressing already existent information. But the ultimate source of that information resides in an intelligence not reducible to nature.
and
Active information is to informational accounting what the balance sheet is to financial accounting. Just as the balance sheet keeps track of credits and debits, so active information keeps track of inputs and outputs of information, making sure that they receive their proper due. Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information.
They do make one mention of the possibility of infinite regress, as you do, but their argument for ID is based on the assumption that information is in fact created by intelligence.
I went through the basic accounting above and I see no problems whatsoever with either Marks and Dembski’s framework or the fundamental hypothesis of ID.
By accounting, I mean tracking the input and output of information, as D&M say in the above quote, to show that information is actually created. To support kairosfocus's claim that programming is empirical evidence of mind creating active info, we need to crunch the numbers. To do this, we have to define our search spaces, and that's where the accounting system runs into problems. On what basis do we non-arbitrarily define these spaces?R0b_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

ROb: "Cumulative selection, as Dawkins uses the term, can act with or without a long-term target." Evidence please. I propose that Darwinian evolution (if defined as cumulative selection without a target) does not exist. ROb: "But since evolution must have a target in order for the concept of active info to apply, M&D came up with the concept of “intrinsic targets” to describe targets that are divorced from teleology." No, not targets divorced from teleology. These targets are merely intrinsic because they must exist in the structure of the universe in order for evolution to operate. The question then becomes, how does one determine the existence of targets, which patterns are indeed targets, and are they attainable without teleology? As to determining the targets, this is where IC and CSI come in to play. I'm actually quite surprised that D&M seem to have not explicitly connected targets with CSI in relation to active info.CJYman_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

niwrad @ 88:
Also cumulative selection has no target. (The target of “survival” is too unspecified and non complex to deserve the status of “target”.) Also a simulator of cumulative selection must not have the target declared in its first instruction.
Cumulative selection, as Dawkins uses the term, can act with or without a long-term target. Dawkins explains his usage of the term thusly: The essential difference between single-step selection and cumulative selection is this. In single-step selection the entities selected or sorted, pebbles or whatever they are, are sorted once and for all. In cumulative selection, on the other hand, they ‘reproduce’; or in some other way the results of one sieving process are fed into a subsequent sieving, which is fed into into…and so on. The entities are subjected to selection or sorting over many ‘generations’ in succession. The end-product of one generation of selection is the starting point for the next generation of selection, and so on for many generations. Note that there is nothing in there on whether the selection is based on a long-term target or on immediate criteria.
The fact that they state a target to measure the active information needed to search it doesn’t imply they see evolution as teleological.
Of course they don't, and nobody in their right mind would say such a thing. But since evolution must have a target in order for the concept of active info to apply, M&D came up with the concept of "intrinsic targets" to describe targets that are divorced from teleology.R0b_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

ROb: "CJYman, if information is synonymous with language, then statements like the following don’t make much sense: “Languages are what encode information into physical substrates and enable it to be decoded on the receiving end.” I see what you mean now. I read through tgpeeler's comment again, and I see I have slightly simplified and in doing so mischaracterized what he said in that specific case. "Language" would be a system of rules and symbols. "Symbols" themselves, when operating within a set of rules would be considered as "information."CJYman_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

djmullen: "You’re probably familiar with the process by which RNA produces proteins. RNA is a long stringy molecule made of a backbone which carries four different “base” molecules on it in different combinations." ... exactly! And it is this combination/organization of "bases" in a DNA string which does not emerge from any mathematical description of regularity (law) or the physical properties of the "base" molecules. This is the point that tgpeeler is attempting to get across when he speaks of symbols, rules, and the laws of physics -- a point which I believe he has stated quite well; I'm honestly not sure why some people here seem to be refusing to actually listen to what he is saying. Given the laws of physics -- the laws of regular attraction/repulsion based on physical properties of matter and energy -- we could not predict any arrangement of nucleotides because their arrangement as I just explained is not defined by those laws of physics. Furthermore, there is no physical law which can be used to calculate whether a stretch of DNA is "meaningful" or not. This idea of "meaningfulness" or "function" is wholly dependent on a context of further organization of groups of proteins again not defined by the laws of physics. The groups of proteins are defined by the DNA which is not defined by the laws of physics. Yes, it is true that the mechanism for copying and constructing from DNA obey the laws of physics, however, these laws merely provide boundary conditions from which that organization can operate. It is the organization itself that is not defined by the laws of physics. An analogy would be a child placing magnetic letters on the fridge. He is violating no laws of nature in doing so. In fact, the laws of nature are what allow and indeed cause the magnets to stick to the fridge when they are in close enough proximity. However, when the child begins to spell out "I Love you Mommy," we are seeing a meaningful pattern in which the meaning/function and organization of the pattern is not defined by the laws of physics or any physical properties of the magnets. There is no law which states that the letter "I" must come before the letter "L," nor is there any law which states that the symbol "I" must be a reference to the person using it. Likewise, there is no law which states that the nucleotide "A" must come before "C" nor is there a law which states that a string of nucleotides must provide function. It is only the further "not-defined-by-law" organization of the molecules in a cell which provide the rest of the context and rules which determine whether a given string of DNA will provide function. That is why if you take all the constituents of a cell and mix them in a test tube, they will not organize themselves into a functioning cell. There is no law based on the material used to define such an organization. That is why a slow stepwise evolutionary process, involving processes which may "appear random" when considered on their own, is necessary to build up the "not-defined-by-law" functional information. Another analogy would be to look at your computer. Neither its creation nor its operation violate any physical laws. In fact, your computer operates according to physical laws *once it is sufficiently organized* and that is the clincher. The computer's organization is not defined by any physical properties of the materials utilized, nor is there a law of physics (as a mathematical description of regularities) which states that given the material to build a computer and our physical laws, a computer will self-organize. If such a process occurred it would look completely random until we realize that a computer was forming. At that moment, we would suspect some intelligence behind the process. Michael Polonyi stated it quite well when he wrote: "A shaping of boundaries may be said to go beyond a mere fixing of boundaries and establishes a ‘controlling principle.’ It achieves control of the boundaries by imprinting a significant pattern on the boundaries of the system. Or, to use information language, we may say that it puts the system under the control of a *non-physical-chemical principle* by a profoundly informative intervention.” [asterix added] --Michael Polanyi, “Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry,” Chemical & Engineering News (21 August 1967): 64. Basically, once life is sufficiently organized its rules and language referencing how the symbols are to be processed is then created. The language of life comes from the organization of life (including its symbols/units) and the organization of life is not defined by laws of physics -- mathematical descriptions of regularities emerging from physical properties of matter and energy.CJYman_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

CJYman, if information is synonymous with language, then statements like the following don't make much sense: "Languages are what encode information into physical substrates and enable it to be decoded on the receiving end."R0b_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

ROb: "So I’m aware that he defines information in a way that entails the presence of language. But I still don’t know what that definition is." I'm not sure where you are getting hung up, since according to tgpeeler "information = (is defined as) language = (is defined as) symbols and rules." Is it the definition of symbols and rules that you are unsure of? It appears to me that, if you continue reading the rest of tgpeeler's comment, he explains "symbols and rules."CJYman_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler: Even a child knows that. Just a couple of days ago I explained to my kids that as far as we know, life is essentially information. Then something dawned on me: This same thing has already been confidently asserted by a carpenter and His fishermen pals around 30AD... tgpeeler: Well done!Alex73_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler @126 Very nice! *High five*HouseStreetRoom_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Actually, this is what tgpeeler wrote… tgpeeler: “… information which would include language which would include symbols and rules.”
My request for tgpeeler's definition of information was in response to his statement: "For without language there is no information. This is a matter of definition." So I'm aware that he defines information in a way that entails the presence of language. But I still don't know what that definition is.R0b_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

djmullen: The mechanism of Darwinian evolution is the combination of variation and natural selection. Variation has since been shown to be mutation of DNA. What is the mechanism of ID? ... I posted too soon. Add sexual selection and genetic drift to the mechanisms of evolution. There's also recombinance and epigenetic inheritance. Darwinism offers a "grab bag" of mechanisms and causes, but rarely attempts to explain specifically which are responsible for any given outcome. And then, when it does, it offers no specifics - what was the series of mutations that led from A to B, how were they selected and fixed, etc. The explanation that a given evolutionary change was caused by a vague, undefined combination of causes isn't an explanation at all. If evolution explains the neck of the giraffe, for example, then what is the explanation? Something mutated, something was selected, and maybe something else that we don't know about yet? Darwinism does not provide the mechanisms for anything it proposes to explain.ScottAndrews_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

However, since the fitness of the genotype is an averaged quantity, it will reflect the reproductive outcomes of all individuals with that genotype.

As fitness measures the quantity of the copies of the genes of an individual in the next generation, it doesn't really matter how the genes arrive in the next generation.
Then we have:
Reproductive success is part of the calculation for fitness and a key element in the theories of natural selection and evolution.
fitness biology online: (1) (biology) A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population. (2) A relative measure of reproductive success of an organism in passing its genes to the next generation. (3) The relative ability of an individual (or population) to survive, reproduce and propagate genes in an environment. (4) The state or quality of being fit, e.g. physically or mentally; being in shape, good health or well-being. (5) The capability to perform a function.Joseph_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Ritchie obviously you didn't read the articles I linked to. One even talks about VIABLE OFFSPRING.Joseph_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

djmullen, According to the standard and accepted definitions of both "design" and "mechanism" design is a mechanism. Also a targeted search is a specific design mechanism. And if you knew anything about the debate it is whether or not ALL mutations are genetic accidents or are at least some the result of "built-in response to environmental cues" that Dr Spetner wrote about twelve years ago. IOW dj your ignorance pertaining to ID and mechanisms is duly noted. And if the ToE is scientific we should be able to test it to see if an accumulation of genetic accidents can account for the transformations required. But heck you can't even provide a testable hypothesis based on the mechanisms.Joseph_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

KairosFocus: "Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent." This is not original with me, but "Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design."djmullen_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler, thanks for the lessons on logic. It takes me back to my college logic class, with "There are no Toklus and all of them live in caves." Which, according to my instructor and text book was supposed to be true. Those were the days! However, logic is no good unless you have a grasp of the physical problem you're trying to apply it to. I'll try to explain it as best I can without being able to draw pictures. You're probably familiar with the process by which RNA produces proteins. RNA is a long stringy molecule made of a backbone which carries four different "base" molecules on it in different combinations. To make a protein, a portion of an RNA molecule is "read" three bases at a time by molecules called Transfer RNA or tRNA for short. Simplifying somewhat, there are twenty different types of tRNA molecules and each has a different amino acid attached to one end. The other ends have three chemicals attached to it, side by side in what is called an anticodon loop. There are four kinds of chemicals that can be a part of that anticodon loop and each of them is attracted to one and only one of the bases of a RNA molecule. When making proteins, the RNA is exposed three bases at a time and all of the tRNA molecules floating around in solution bump up against the exposed bases. If all three of the molecules in an anticodon loop are attracted to the bases in the RNA, the amino acid on the other end of the tRNA molecule is attached to the protein that is being constructed. If they aren't all attracted to the bases, the tRNA is bumped off and another one is allowed to come near the RNA molecule. These trials continue until one of the tRNAs finally matches the RNA bases and its amino acid is added to the protein under construction. Now here's where the information comes in: Suppose the bases in the RNA molecule are, for instance, C, U and G, reading left to right and a tRNA molecules comes up to it. If the leftmost molecule in the anticodon is attracted to the C base and the middle molecule is attracted to the U base and the rightmost molecule is attracted to the G base, then there's a match and the amino acid at the other end of the tRNA, leucine, is added to the protein. But suppose you switch two of the bases on the RNA so that the bases uncovered are UCG. Now the leucine tRNA isn't attracted to the RNA base pairs. Instead, another tRNA, with an anticodon loop that is attracted to the UCG sequence snicks into place and the amino acid serine is added to the protein. The information encoded in the sequence of base pairs in the RNA molecule has just been transferred to the protein by way of the tRNA molecules. But no symbols were utilized in transferring it and the only rules invoked were the rules of electrostatic attraction and atomic bonds. As I said in another message, I think you (and most of the people in ID and, for all I know, most of the rest of the world) are confusing information in itself with information within the human mind. The mind does definitely use symbols. It doesn't have any tRNA available for inspection and has to use some kind of symbol to represent it and everything else we know. But raw information exists outside the mind and has existed since long before humans arrived. Finally, as to how the information got into the RNA in the first place, I don't know. As I said before, the Origin Of Life took place billions of years ago at a submicroscopic level. We have no samples of this early life to examine, which makes figuring out life's history difficult. Science is working on figuring out how it happened. ID, so far as I know, isn't.djmullen_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

I posted too soon. Add sexual selection and genetic drift to the mechanisms of evolution. The ID mechanism remains unknown.djmullen_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

Joseph, the history of life on earth is certainly a matter for history, but the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. The mechanism of Darwinian evolution is the combination of variation and natural selection. Variation has since been shown to be mutation of DNA. What is the mechanism of ID? Until ID comes up with one, a debate is impossible because it takes two sides.djmullen_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

ROb, what CJYman said in 125. :-)tgpeeler_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT}

Re: djmullen #112 "The information embedded in the physical structure of RNA (or any other molecule) comes from the atoms that attach together to make to make up the molecule, to the laws of physics that govern the attachments and to the random forces that bring the atoms together. That is how “physics creates information” and you haven’t proven anything to the contrary." The information does not "come from the atoms that attach together." What universe do you live in? The information is ENCODED in the atoms. For there to be information requires symbols and rules. In other words there has to be language to encode the information and there has to be language to transmit the information and there has to be language to decode the information. Now if you think that some inanimate atoms are encoding and transmitting to other inanimate atoms that are then decoding you don't need further explanation, you need help. Maybe this will help. Try this thought experiment, it won't take long. Let's imagine two inanimate objects (rocks will do) trying to communicate. Some questions come to mind. How does one rock encode information and communicate it to the other rock? How does the receiving rock decode it? Will the rocks ever be able to communicate? Or not? If not, why not? HINT: Might it have something to do with the existence of life? Might information not be even a coherent concept absent living things? Imagine a completely lifeless universe. Does information exist? If so, prove it. Regards, p.s. Regarding RNA, you may want to consider why any certain string of nucleotides means anything in the first place. That is the issue. Not that some very, very short and non-functional chain of RNA can "spontaneously" form in a laboratory, i.e. in a controlled environment that is set up and monitored by intelligent agents. p.p.s. Do you understand basic deductive logic? If not, I recommend Copi's Introduction to Logic for starters. It's a classic. In the meantime, it works like this. Arguments can be constructed in such a way that if the argument is "built" correctly (it is valid) and if the premises are true, THEN the conclusion is necessarily true. For example, let's take a simple categorical syllogism. I won't go into the rules here for how to build one but take my word for it or read the book but this is valid. That is, the premises necessarily lead to the conclusion. And if the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true. Major Premise: All cats are mammals. Minor Premise: Felix is a cat. Conclusion: Felix is a mammal. Since part of being a cat is being a mammal, that is true by definition. (Law of Identity - always good to ground your major premise in a first principle or law of physics if possible. That way you know that nothing has been smuggled in from before the argument starts.) Felix is a cat. Empirically true. Felix is indeed a cat. Since the argument is valid and the premises are true, the argument is sound. That means the conclusion is necessarily true. That means that it is impossible for it to be false. Not even God can make that conclusion not be true. OK. Here's another kind called modus tollens. It's of the form If P, Q. ~Q. Therefore, ~P. Here's an example. If it rains heavily, the sidewalks will get wet. But the sidewalks aren't wet. So it didn't rain. Do you see how this works? If "this" is true, then "that" is true. But "that" is not true. So "this is not true." This is also called denying the consequent and it is a valid form of argument. So if the premises are true blah blah blah. OK. Now for my argument, which is an extended form of modus tollens or denying the consequent. So here we go. If the naturalist story of life (neo-Darwinian evolution) is true, then physics can explain life. But physics cannot explain symbols and rules, and therefore physics cannot explain language, and therefore physics cannot explain life. Therefore, the naturalist story of life (neo-Darwinian evolution) is not true. In fact, it's not even possible for it to be true. Now since this is a valid form of argument, all you can really do to defeat it is attack the premises. The first premise is that evolution relies upon physics for its explanatory power. Naturalism entails physics as the only explanatory agent in nature. It's part of the definition of naturalism and since neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is the naturalistic story, well, there you go. The next premise is that physics cannot explain symbols and rules. This is the empirical claim. It's a universal observation that although physics does an amazing job of explaining the material world it has absolutely nothing to say about the abstract world, the world of information (and mathematics, and the laws of physics themselves, and the laws of reason and economic laws and so on). Ask any physicist. He will tell you this is so. Physics deals with quarks and leptons and forces and stuff like that. But as far as why a certain arrangement of atoms or molecules "means" something, not happening. Not now. Not ever. You have attempted to refute this but have not done so. You have merely asserted that since the laws of physics govern the attachment of atoms that means that physics generates information. This betrays a complete lack of understanding of both the argument and physics. Information is not "naturally" encoded in atoms. That's the whole point. When information is encoded in a physical substrate there is more to the substrate than the substrate. Get it? The physics can account for the substrate but not for the specific arrangement of atoms that encode and convey information. A message if you will. A reduction of uncertainty if you will. Let me give you another example. What if you were to leave work this afternoon and when you looked up in the sky you saw this: SURRENDER DOROTHY. What would you immediately think? Well, if you've never seen the Wizard of Oz you might think some sky writer was trying to scare Dorothy. But most of us would immediately know that the Wicked Witch of the West did it. Immediately we know that physics cannot account for either the symbols themselves, that they can have meaning, nor the specific arrangement of the symbols such that they communicate a message. We instantly know that. Even a child knows that. If you came home from work and walked into the kitchen and a box of cheerios had been tipped over, and you saw this on the counter: Take out the trash Honey, Thanks. Each letter comprised of cheerios, would you think that was an accident? Or that physics could somehow explain that? I don't think so. Physics can explain why the cheerios are cheerios but it has NOTHING to say about why, when they are arranged a certain way, they mean something. Physics cannot account for the "meaning" of certain arrangements of atoms (symbols) that are organized in certain specified ways (rules) to mean something. Life, in this case. Life is the message. It's like a book, only better. Since physics cannot explain this meaning apart from the physical substrate, it cannot explain why ATCGGCTACT (the "letters" of the DNA molecule) means something, or not. i.e. codes for a functional protein or not. For that to be happening you need a language that governs the placement of the nucleotides (the symbols) into certain codons (words) etc... to create living things. Physics doesn't do it. Since physics can't account for symbols and rules, and since symbols and rules are necessary for language, and language is necessary for information, and information is necessary for life, physics can't explain life. That means........ that anyone who thinks it can is wrong. It's not that difficult. I suspect you get this perfectly but maybe are unwilling to come to terms with the implications. Not my business. But that's how you need to attack this argument or any other argument. Point out the flaws in the structure or the falsity of one or both of the premises. Again, in this case that means explaining how thermodynamics or general relativity or quantum physics or the standard model or the four forces in nature somehow relate some atoms to other atoms in a meaningful way. It can't be done because the relationship of one thing for another is outside the bounds of physics. It will never be true. It can't possibly be true. I hope this helps.tgpeeler_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

ROb: "As there is no definition of information in the above," Actually, this is what tgpeeler wrote... tgpeeler: "... information which would include language which would include symbols and rules." I think it is sufficiently clear that, for the purpose of this discussion, tgpeeler is defining information in terms of language and language in terms of symbols and rules. Especially since he later states, in his argument, that nothing need be explained but "symbols and rules." That is what it all comes down to. From whence come symbols and the rules to organize and utilize those symbols? Here's a hint. It has nothing to do with the physical properties of material. In neither human language, computer language, nor the language of life is the arrangement of the units/symbols the result of any physical properties of the materials used.CJYman_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

A simple answer to "What is the higher-order search space?” is ... "That system of law and chance which caused our universal laws, initial and boundary conditions."CJYman_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

Hello Rob, It seems that there is a point you make that I agree with, but first ... kf stated: "Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent." ... and you [ROb] respond with: "And asserting something as fact does not make it a fact." Are you saying that you dispute what kf just pointed out? Unless I'm not following correctly, you could easily prove kf wrong by pointing to one evolutionary algorithm which wasn't programmed by an intelligence. Until then, it does seem that kf has provided us with factual data ... ie: a "fact." And now on to the point with which I somewhat agree. ROb states: "To say that every program was composed by an intelligent programmer is not the same as saying that intelligent programmers create active information." I agree with that statement fully. It may be that intelligent systems do not generate information either. They may also only shuffle information from one state to another. This, however, does nothing to defeat the hypothesis of ID which states that certain patterns require previous intelligence as a necessary condition. IOW law, chance, and previous information *must* be compiled through an intelligent system in order for those specific types of patterns to be realized. So, as long as chance and law absent previous intelligence do not create intelligence, then either there is an infinite regress of intelligence or else intelligence is at least as fundamental as law and chance. ROb: "You have not applied Marks and Dembski’s accounting system to the scenario, so your claim that active info is created is unfounded." Mark's and Dembski's accounting system actually does not address the creation of active info, it only addresses the existence of active info. According to what they have presented, there are two options ... 1. Active information can never be created ... it just keeps getting pushed back to higher level searches. The only other possibility within this option, other than infinite regress, as I pointed to above is to accept intelligence as being fundamental alongside law and chance since intelligence itself can be stated in terms of CSI or active information thus providing all the active info necessary for further CSI or active info generation or transformation. That is, unless it can be shown that active information can result from the interplay of law and chance absent previous intelligence. Option #2. Intelligence actually can create active information through a process not yet understood ... may have something to do with consciousness ... who knows? It's just an observation so far that everywhere active info is generated, intelligence is responsible and no one has shown law and chance absent intelligence to be anything other than impotent at generating active info. ROb: "And if you try to do the accounting, which I highly recommend, you’ll immediately see problems in Marks and Dembski’s framework." I went through the basic accounting above and I see no problems whatsoever with either Marks and Dembski's framework or the fundamental hypothesis of ID. ROb: "I ask you again: What is the higher-order search space?" If our laws of nature, initial conditions, and boundary conditions emerge from quantum interactions, then the higher level search would reside within the quantum search space from which our laws emerged.CJYman_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

ROb, you are welcome. Feel free to actually read the post anytime. Regards,tgpeeler_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply