This is Stunning!

_{Barry Arrington

August 12, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Eric Anderson writes: “Darwinists regularly admit [the physical systems we see in life] look designed and they have to keep reminding themselves that they aren’t designed.”

Elizabeth Liddle writes later in the same thread: “…by intelligence I mean the power and facility to choose between options–this coincides with the Latin etymology of “intelligence,” namely, “to choose between”which is much more precise, but which would in fact include evolutionary processes”

And Upright BiPed asks: “Which evolutionary process has the facility to make a choice between alternate options?”

And Barry sums up: Ms. Liddle forgot to remind herself that she cannot use teleological language in a literal sense. Sometimes I wonder if the entire Darwinist program is built on nothing but linguistic equivocations.

Comments

Upright BiPed:
And as if it would have made any difference, that same operation could be worded in the jargon already used in your definition: “isolate the iterative arrangements/patterns of (virtual) matter, map those patterns to specific output effects, then determine which inert intermediary objects are required by each iterative pattern in order to result in the effect – with the cumulative effect being a copy of the system itself”.
Yes, this makes a huge difference. Thank you. OK, well, I have a lot of other things on my plate right now, but I will work with this. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{August 19, 2011
August
08
Aug
19
19
2011
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, as has already been discussed several times - we are not now, and have not been, having a "miscommunication". As can be seen by your own words quoted in 46.2 on June 9th, you methodically went though the observations, and you understood them. THAT has never been the problem. Yesterday, you made it clear that you were the “trained scientist” here, and by that you insinuated that I wouldn’t be able to keep up with your earned acumen (which may be true). However if you will set that aside for just a moment, this lowly Research Director of 30 years can offer you some salient advice. I have said this to you a number of times already in number of different ways, but here it is once again – you are asking the wrong question! Since this conversation is now dead, I will say this once again in the hopes that if you read this and decide to go ahead and try to falsify my claim, you will at least do it the correct way. From the very beginning, you have approached this project as if you were going to test the output for a value of some kind, and then you would take that value and hold it against a numerical standard in order to confirm your success or failure. But that is the wrong question to ask, and therefore the wrong test. This exercise was never meant to be a test of a mathematical model of information. This entire conversation was based on my claim that material forces “don’t have a mechanism for bringing information into existence in the first place”. Remember? So we were seeking to test for the rise of information itself, and to do so, we were looking for the observable entailments that are present in any other form of recorded information, including that within the genome. Those entailments are the specific physical objects and their dynamic relationships, which we spent over two months agreeing to. And once again, your understanding of them is demonstrated in the quote above at 46.2. There is no misunderstanding. But you can’t get to “specific physical objects and their dynamic relationships” by merely testing for a numerical value at the output, Dr Liddle. For that you have to test the output for a different question. That question is: “does the output of this system demonstrate the physical objects/dynamics required for information” (as described again in bullets 1-6 in post 35). To test for that you require two things: 1) a complete understanding of those physical objects and their dynamic relationships, and 2) a method of testing those physical objects for the dynamic relationships you wish to confirm. Now as far as requirement #1; there is no doubt whatsoever that you have that complete understanding (as evidenced by your own words at many different points in this conversation). And as far as requirement #2, it has been made perfectly clear that the only valid method of confirming the presence of those dynamics is to demonstrate them by isolating the representations, deciphering the protocols, and documenting the effects. And as if it would have made any difference, that same operation could be worded in the jargon already used in your definition: “isolate the iterative arrangements/patterns of (virtual) matter, map those patterns to specific output effects, then determine which inert intermediary objects are required by each iterative pattern in order to result in the effect – with the cumulative effect being a copy of the system itself”.Upright BiPed_{August 19, 2011
August
08
Aug
19
19
2011
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Then you brought up that "break in the causal/physical chain" thing. Look UBP: I am content to accept that we have been unable to understand each other, and indeed, to accept at least partial responsibility for that. Time and again, you have thought that you understood me, and I have thought that I understood you, then, when it came to an actual operationalisation, it turned out neither of us understood the other. This has been disappointing, but I realise that it sometimes happens. What I cannot understand is your insistence on my dishonesty. I am not dishonest, and have not been dishonest. As for "assuming my correctness" about this - of course I "assume" that I'm honest! I know I am! And as for "I have been informed that Dr Liddle has gone elsewhere on the internet ..." - well, yes, I was the one who informed you! And invited you to join me there! Whereupon you tried to paint me as having been discourteous to my hosts here! Is it any wonder, UBP, that I suspect you of deliberately trying to find the worst possible interpretation on anything I say? Communication is impossible under such conditions. However, if you are willing to drop those priors (the only rule at my site), I would be delighted if you would join the conversation there, in the thread I set up for the purpose, and gave you the link to.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 18, 2011
August
08
Aug
18
18
2011
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

I have been informed that Dr Liddle has gone elsewhere on the internet and posed a question regarding me, apparently in relation to post #46 where I question her honesty in saying that she doesn’t know what I mean when I use the term “dissociated representation”. Even after pointing out to her that the term was one that she herself introduced into the conversation (which I immediately accepted) and that I was simply using it in that exact same context as it was introduced, she still returned in 46.1 to emphasis yet again that she has no idea what I "mean by it". I light of that, or in fact despite it, she now poses a question elsewhere. A question - that by its very nature immediately assumes her correctness, and casts me as one to be suspect for doubting her intergity. She asks: “What does it take to be convinced that another person is lying to you – when they aren’t? I will answer that question here, and then hope she has the decency to drop it: - - - - - - - - BIPED (June 6th): It [information] requires a mechanism to cause an arrangement of matter/energy (a representation) to be formed, and to establish a relationship between that arrangement and the object it is to represent. - - - - - - - LIDDLE (June 9th): So let’s try your alternative:
Information is an abstraction of a discrete object/thing embedded in an arrangement of matter or energy.
This looks more promising, apart from the word “abstraction”. hmmm. Dictionary definitions of “abstraction” just send us back to “abstract”. For “abstract”, Merriam Webster has:
1 a : disassociated from any specific instance b : difficult to understand : abstruse c : insufficiently factual : formal 2: expressing a quality apart from an object 3a : dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : theoretical b : impersonal, detached 4: having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative context
Which is somewhat problematic because these tend to reference ideas and minds, and again, we cannot include this in our definition if we are trying to determine whether a mind is intrinsic to information! However “disassociated from any specific instance” might give us a clue. That could give us something like: “Information is a representation of a discrete object/thing embedded in an arrangement of matter or energy, where the object/thing represented is entirely dissociated from the representation”. That seems to work, I think, do you agree? So I can’t, for example, claim that the pattern of raindrops left on sand is creating “information” about the rain, because the representation (dimples in the sand) is not dissociated from the drops (the dimples are rain-drop shaped). - - - - - - - BIPED (June 9th): Lizzie, At first glance, I have no particular problem with the definition you propose - - - - - - - - - LIDDLE (June 9th): OK, that’s fine, thanks for clarifying.Upright BiPed_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

I came back from lunch and was crafting a positive response to your 42.1. My only general concern with the language was that you need to add the output of the system as you had agreed to previously (being a copy of the system itself). But before I posted my response, I refreshed my screen and saw your response at 43.1 where you state that you are not quite sure what I mean by a “dissociated represenation”. But dissociated representation was never my term, it was one you yourself introduced in operationalizing the conceptual definiton. You know all of this very very well.
And I don't know what you mean by it, UBP. This has been the trouble all along. We agree something, then it turns out that what you mean by the terms is something different to what I mean by them. It just seems to be the way it is. It's not for want of trying to bridge the gulf on my part, and probably not on yours either.
It then occurs to me how truly disconnected you are from having a fair and honest exchange. I am certainly not talking about conversation in general, I am talking about where the rubber meets the road, the key foundational points in this exchange. And I too wonder why I am involved.
It occurs to me how truly disconnected we are from each other, despite nominally sharing a common tongue.
I see you now want to quit in order to protect yourself from any further accusations upon your character. I think that plan befits you in a spectacular fashion.
I want to cease conversing with you, Upright BiPed, because it's bad for my blood pressure. As I said, I will probably proceed with the project anyway. But it is impossible to converse with someone who seems determined to interpret anything I post in the worst possible light. And, frankly, I doubt any "positive" response would have been forthcoming. I admit to beginning to doubt your own good faith.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

I came back from lunch and was crafting a positive response to your 42.1. My only general concern with the language was that you need to add the output of the system as you had agreed to previously (being a copy of the system itself). But before I posted my response, I refreshed my screen and saw your response at 43.1 where you state that you are not quite sure what I mean by a “dissociated represenation". But dissociated representation was never my term, it was one you yourself introduced in operationalizing the conceptual definiton. You know all of this very very well. It then occurs to me how truly disconnected you are from having a fair and honest exchange. I am certainly not talking about conversation in general, I am talking about where the rubber meets the road, the key foundational points in this exchange. And I too wonder why I am involved. I see you now want to quit in order to protect yourself from any further accusations upon your character. I think that plan befits you in a spectacular fashion.Upright BiPed_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

OK, thinking further: Upright BiPed, I do not want to proceed with this. I have simply had enough of your continuous attacks on my integrity. I have a moderately tough hide, but this has got too much. It should go without saying that I absolutely deny the accusations you have leveled at me. They are completely without foundation, as I think any objective witness would agree. I am capable of errors, and of misunderstanding, but not only do I not lie, I place a very high value on honesty. I might proceed with the project anyway, but to my own time table. I'm going on holiday in a week, and I have quite a lot to do before I leave, and I will be very busy when I get back. If I do succeed with the project I will try to let you know.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

That is false, Upright BiPed. You might want to do some thinking yourself.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

I misread your question, Upright BiPed. I was thinking of any discipline that deals with chaotic patterns, from fractals to weather forecasting. I'm still not quite sure what you mean by "dissociated represenattions and require protocols in order to have an effect", but presumably those examples don't have them.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Well, you told me to go ahead, but when I asked you whether you would regard success as a falsification, you demurred. Unless we an agree on an operationalisation of what falsification would look like, then there isn't any point in me starting. That was exactly (in direct contradiction to your assertion) I wanted an operational definition with no wiggle room. For either of us. OK, let's have one last try: You seem to have agreed that your claim can be written as: "Chance and Necessity cannot generate information, where information consists of arrangements of something that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns." Are you happy with that? If so I will try to operationalise it in a way that it can be falsified by a simulation on the lines I have described.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

And "to be honest" as you are often want to say, the only smear taking place here is your arrogant disregard for the observable evidence Dr Liddle. Think about it.Upright BiPed_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

And by the way, you still haven't produced an example of the "lots of disciplines" where we've been "observing patterns arising from “deeply nested contingencies” which come in the form of dissociated represenattions and require protocols in order to have an effect?" All I need is one.Upright BiPed_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

I already accepted it Dr Liddle, did you forget that too?Upright BiPed_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

LIDDLE (July 30th): Upright BiPed suggested something much more along the lines of Meyer’s quoted definition from Merriam-Webster, in which “information” is not a property of a pattern, as with CSI, but the property of a process. This makes a lot more sense to me, as I’ve said, and would mean that the ID claim, which I set out to refute, is: Chance and Necessity cannot create information, where information is arrangements of things that have specific effects. So we have protocol in there now – information is not just a pattern but a pattern that has effects. And not just any effects – effects specific to a pattern. In other words there is a mapping between pattern and effect. However, Upright BiPed also made an additional caveat, which is that to be true information, the mapping has to be achieved via an inert arbitrary intermediary pattern of some kind (as is done by tRNA in a cell). And in addition, I made the caveat that the specific effects should probably be functional in some way – e.g. promote faithful self-replication. And so the ID claim becomes: Chance and Necessity cannot generate information, where information consists of arrangements of something that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns. LIDDLE (Aug 13th): As we have agreed, your criterion for inferring intelligent design is stricter and more defensible. BIPED (Aug 14th): You know what my claim is and you what operation is required to validate it. LIDDLE (Aug 14th): no, I don’t know what your claim is Very impressive; your ability to vacillate, while claiming both intellectual and methodological superiority.
Well, I thought I did, then you wouldn't endorse my operationalisation. So clearly I was mistaken. Anyway, that's it, UBP. I've had enough of your slurs and smears. If you want a claim testing, you will have to ask someone else. I retract my claim that I could falsify what I thought was yours. I can't.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

LIDDLE (July 30th): Upright BiPed suggested something much more along the lines of Meyer’s quoted definition from Merriam-Webster, in which “information” is not a property of a pattern, as with CSI, but the property of a process. This makes a lot more sense to me, as I’ve said, and would mean that the ID claim, which I set out to refute, is: Chance and Necessity cannot create information, where information is arrangements of things that have specific effects. So we have protocol in there now – information is not just a pattern but a pattern that has effects. And not just any effects – effects specific to a pattern. In other words there is a mapping between pattern and effect. However, Upright BiPed also made an additional caveat, which is that to be true information, the mapping has to be achieved via an inert arbitrary intermediary pattern of some kind (as is done by tRNA in a cell). And in addition, I made the caveat that the specific effects should probably be functional in some way – e.g. promote faithful self-replication. And so the ID claim becomes: Chance and Necessity cannot generate information, where information consists of arrangements of something that produce specific functional effects by means of inert intermediary patterns.

LIDDLE (Aug 13th): As we have agreed, your criterion for inferring intelligent design is stricter and more defensible.

BIPED (Aug 14th): You know what my claim is and you what operation is required to validate it. LIDDLE (Aug 14th): no, I don’t know what your claim is
Very impressive; your ability to vacillate, while claiming both intellectual and methodological superiority.Upright BiPed_{August 17, 2011
August
08
Aug
17
17
2011
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

"I’m reading the repeated statements that non teleological processes can meet the definition of intelligent design. It really is stunning ..." Even when they're foolishly not claiming such blatantly false things, the anti-IDist face a problem even in their use of ostensibly non-teleological language; for, the meaning of even the simple word 'process' inherently implies teleology.Ilion_{August 16, 2011
August
08
Aug
16
16
2011
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

I'm reading the repeated statements that non teleological processes can meet the definition of intelligent design. It really is stunning. By definition and by meeting the requirements, anything that designs intelligently is an intelligent designer. It could be variation and selection, a fork, or my toenail clippings. But what is the point of raising the hypotheticals, 'If variation and selection or my toenail clippings produce design, then do they meet the definition of intelligent design?" It's a pointless exercise in tautology. The answer is always yes. It has nothing to do with the more significant questions, can variation and selection or toenail clippings design intelligently? Right now both are in fairy tale land, except that one story gets told more and has more funding thrown at it and many more thousands of research papers to wade through before realizing that they aren't answering the question. For example, one determined person threw at me a research paper showing that bats evolved from rodents. In reality it explained how a protein present in both rodents and bats was expressed differently between the two, resulting in longer forelimbs in bats. IOW, they had discovered that rodents and bats are genetically different. But that's okay, there are always more papers.ScottAndrews_{August 16, 2011
August
08
Aug
16
16
2011
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed
Dr Liddle, This would be a very good time to stop and take stock in what point we are at in this conversation.
Indeed.
For the great majority of this conversation over the past two and a half months you have had a singular mantra that you have repeated over and over again. That mantra has been that you needed from me a clean operational definition in order to measure the output of your simulation (so that it might be considered a success). Certainly, at the start of this conversation, that request was completely reasonable by anyone’s standard (although I told you at the time that I would do the describing and you could do the definition). And so, off we went though the observations.
No, I just wanted a good conceptual definition. I was happy to do the operationalisation.
During this process of discovery it became evident to you that I was not focusing on a metric to measure informational content. Instead, I was describing the actual entailments that can be observed in any instance of recorded information. This goes to the very heart of my original comment to you that “Darwinian processes don’t have a mechanism to bring information into existence in the first place”. So suddenly, the idea of a nice roomy ambiguous calculation was out the window, and you found yourself faced with a very real and very tight definition; one which leaves virtually no room for doubt.
Upright BiPed this is sheer misrepresentation – worse, it is smear. At no time have a sought a “nice roomy ambiguous calculation”. It has been my clearly stated request, at all times, to agree on the complete opposite – a totally unambiguous measure by which an objective observer could tell whether or not I had falsified your claim. How you can say the mirror opposite beggars belief. Moreoever, my response to your claim that “Darwinian processes don’t have a mechanism to bring information into existence in the first place” was to agree that OK, I won’t even start with a Darwinian system – I’ll start only with non-self-replicating entities and let the Darwinian process emerge from those. I couldn’t have been more rigorous.
The fact that the definition is so tight is not a matter of anything I have done, but is simply a reflection of the fact that the existence of recorded information happens to be a very special and rare phenomenon with very clean lines of delineation between itself and not-information. In other words, there is either information, or not. Or to be more precise, information can either be confirmed to exist, or it can’t.
And those “very clean lines of delineation” are exactly what I have been trying to extract from you, in order to operationalise the falsification of your claim. But, for reasons I have explained, patiently and repeatedly, and which you have not addressed, you have not provided a clean definition, but rather one full of words whose definition (certainly by the dictionaries I have consulted) bring us back full circle to the construct-to-be-explained. It’s not difficult to mend, and I have attempted to mend it myself. But you shy away from the fence apparently – and I will not spend time attempting to falsify a claim that you will not own.
This very fine line is brought about by the presence of very specific physical objects, and very specific relationships between those physical objects. These are the entailments mentioned above. Recorded information requires discrete physical representations. For one physical thing to represent another, it must have something to establish what is otherwise a non-existent relationship. And the thing that must establish that relationship is yet another physical object, a protocol. The protocol is what allows a representation to be dissociated from what it is to represent, and it allows that representation to create an effect while remaining discrete. There are no instances of recorded information anywhere in the cosmos that do not have these objects and relationships. The question regarding the rise of information is how do these immaterial relationships between physical objects come into a coordinated existence?
And the kind of stuff you have written above, Upright BiPed, is at best circular, and at worst, assumes its conclusion. I’ve tried to explain why, repeatedly, but instead of attempting to rebut my counter-arguments, you repeat the problematic phraseology while continuing to cast aspersions on my integrity. It’s like wrestling with a duvet dentata.
For me the answer is ‘a living thing’ because there is no evidence otherwise. For you, the answer is inanimate matter under the forces of chance contingency and physical law. As an example of proper empiricism, your simulation was to be an attempt to demonstrate your hypothesis, while mine has already been demonstrated. Weeks ago, you and I had worked our way through these observable objects, and had begun to work our way through the dynamic relationships they must adhere to. It was at this point in the conversation that I brought up the fact that information has a very specific method which must be used in order to confirm its existence. This is the method Nirenberg and Matthaei used to win the Nobel Prize, and it’s the only method known to exist. To confirm the existence of information – any information – one has to isolate the representations, decipher the protocols, and document the effects.
You seem to be confusing the decoding of a message with establishing that there is indeed a message exists. Nirenberg knew that the message existed, and he figured out the code – in other words he figured out what patterns in DNA resulted in what amino acid. However, to establish that information existed, all that was required was to correlate patterns with phenotypic effects, which had already been established. That is why I have suggested that if patterns in my virtual polymers correlated with “phenotypic” effects on my virtual organisms that confer reproductive advantage, I have demonstrated, firstly, Darwinian systems can arise from non-Darwinian systems, and secondly that Darwinian systems create information (by the Webster definition).
Instead of jumping at the chance to adopt this methodology as a sure fire way of confirming the success of your simulation (against all challenges to the contrary) you did the exact opposite. You positioned it as being irrelevant. And it was at this very point that your lone refrain about having an operational definition became a vacuous sideshow (an illegitimate tool, a technique).
This is false.
The fact of the matter (which can be demonstrated by virtue of this recorded conversation) is that you had already written a very good definition of these specific objects and their dynamic relationships to one another, and now you had the only valid method (the operation) of determining if information was indeed present.
See above.
And this brings us to the point of your last post, where you continue to harp about an operational definition. It puts me in the precarious position of having to dismiss your call for a definition (because you DEMONSTRABLY already have the ONLY OPERATION in existence for the TYPE OF TEST you want to perform) but provides you the strategic and uncharitable opportunity to stand by the Flag of Science and repeat ad nauseam how important operational definitions are to honest empiricism.
See above.
What fails in this situation, of course, is not just that you already have the operation required for the test, but that having operational definitions are not even the priority of having operational definitions. The priority of having an operational definition is to gain a demonstrated understanding of the issue at hand – and that part of this discussion was demonstrated long ago.
I’m sorry but I cannot even parse this.
Beyond having this demonstrated understanding, the only true moderator of any test is nothing less than plain ole honesty.
Nor this. But honesty is good. I like honesty. I am honest.
So now, let us look at your current argument. You said you want to “correlate” the input representation to the output effect. I then turned your mantra for an operational definition back on you and asked “how” you intend to “correlate” the input to the output. Now, certainly, I believe you know very well where I am heading with this question, and that is why you didn’t directly answer it. You know very well that you cannot have a list of iterative inputs and map them to resulting effects and call that information.
ORLY? Recall that my inputs will be arrangements of something, and my effects will be specific. Seems to me that if I can’t call that “information” you had better take that up with Messrs Merriam and Webster. Also Meyer.
That does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate the dynamics required by the true presence of information. The input and the output must remain physically discrete, only to be coordinated by the protocol, which is itself physically discrete.
And I have specified this, because I appreciate that to satisfy the Upright BiPed definition of information I must go further than Merriam-Webster. Although, as I’ve said repeatedly, I do not have great confidence that I can do this part.
Knowing this fact very well, you know and I know that the only valid answer to the question I asked is …(drumroll please)… to isolate the representations, decipher the protocols, and document the effects !
Well, it would be nice if, instead of repeated this phrase, you would actually give me non-circular definitions of the terms, as I keep requesting.
And so there we have it. Your continuous harping for an operational definition has brought you right back to where we always were – exactly where I told you that we had to be. The very fine definition of inputs, representations, protocols, and effects that were crafted weeks ago, along with the operation that I told you about weeks ago, is all you have ever needed to perform your simulation.
Except that they need to be operationalised.
I would also like to quickly bring you back to a comment you made earlier in this conversation. You had suggested that if we really really understood each other’s position, then the distinctions would be so clear that in fact the simulation would probably not even be necessary. I took note of a certain amount of personal confidence in that comment. Most assuredly, you made that comment under the idea that I would come to see your point as valid and would concede to it. I doubt with the greatest of doubt that when you wrote those words, you thought ‘I will find that my point is invalid, and will not even need to attempt to prove it’.
Doubt away. Your doubt is not warranted, but I seem powerless to convince you of that.
Now I am certainly willing for you to make that call, but what I see by this demonstration of pointless running around (about not having a valid operation) is that you finally “get it”. In fact, I see once again in your last post how you want to split off from the observations we’ve made, and want to demonstrate nothing more than the Webster’s definition instead (which you already know does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate the verifiable entailments of information).
I’m hearing a lot of words, Upright BiPed, but this doesn’t really feel like a conversation. I’m not even sure you are reading my posts. It doesn’t sound like it.
To demonstrate the rise of information, you must demonstrate the rise of the objects and dynamics that are observed in any other instance of recorded information. And that is no easy task (as outlined in post 35 of this thread). You need a mechanism to jump across a gap in physicality; from the physicality of the representation object, to the physicality of the output, without having the representation object ever directly interact with the output. The bridge between the two (the protocol) is yet another physical object, which itself must coordinate the representation to the output, while allowing them to remain separate. Now that may seem like a huge hurdle to jump – which it is for a non-living system – but for a living thing, that entire phenomenon is captured in nothing more than calling an apple and “apple”.
Upright BiPed: cells do not “call an apple an apple”. DNA is not a language. It’s a molecule. It serves as a template that results in matching strands of RNA molecules. Some of these RNA molecules, tRNA, molecules have binding sites for for codons on mRNA molecules at one end, and amino acids at the other. DNA in cells only gives rise to a subset of possible tRNA molecules, and this subset is such that there is no more than one tRNA molecule for each possible codon. These tRNA molecules also have binding sites for amino acids. This means that there is a one-to-more than one mapping between RNA codons and 20 amino acids. There is no symbolism here. There is no “representation” in the usual sense of that word. There is chemistry. There is, however, “information” by the Merriam Webster definition, because certain arrangements of things, namely DNA nucleotides, result in specific effects, namely sequences of amino acids that affect the probability that the cell will survive and replicate. This would be true no matter how many, or how few, if any intermediate molecules were involved in the transcription from DNA to “specific effect”. For some reason you don’t count it as “information” unless there is at least one, and I have said I will try to do that, but I don’t have confidence that I can. I have more confidence in the rest.
If by trying once again to split off from having to demonstrate the actual entailments of recorded information, you are now effectively saying that you cannot produce the simulation, then so be it.
No, I am not, Upright BiPed.
That is completely your decision, but whether you attempt the simulation or not, you continue to owe an unambiguous retraction of your comment that: IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes
I have already amended this claim.
If an IDist hadn’t made a valid case, then your simulation would not be necessary, so the facts on the ground refute this claim whether or not your simulation ever makes the light of day. We can also be very certain that neither of your previous two begrudging attempts at a retraction reflect any fairness to the evidence at all.
I beg to differ.
- – - – - – - On last thing Dr Liddle, you have withheld your honesty about this situation. And you have personally withheld that honesty from me. By doing so, you have effectively stolen something from me that I was very very enamored with. That something was the chance (and was my premeditated intention) to be as gracious as humanly possible to you if you retracted your remark in fairness and honesty.
Oh for goodness’ sake. Geez louise. Look UBP: I willingly concede that I have been, in the end, unable to understand your claim well enough to be able to operationalise any attempt to falsify it. Your claim, for what it is worth, stands, and I make no claims to be able to refute it. No, that is not gracious, but it is the best I can do. I have put up with almost unceasing attacks on my integrity from you throughout this conversation, with as much grace as I could muster. However, we seem unable to reach common ground. I do not ascribe this to dishonesty on your part, and you should not ascribe it to mine, because that would be untrue. I do ascribe it to a huge, and, it appears, unbridgeable, gulf between the kind of language and expression you think is clear and unambiguous, and the kind of language I find so.
There are people on this blog (like Dr Torely, Kairosfocus, and others) who will tell me that I myself poisoned the chance to have that opportunity by being too aggressive in the defense of my views of the evidence. I agree with them and will try to emulate their disposition as best I can. But I also disagree with them, in that I don’t think (in actuality) that it is my disposition that causes you to withhold your honesty.
No, it isn’t, because I don’t “withhold [my] honesty”. I know it sometimes seems that way, when you profoundly disagree with someone, and you cannot see how they can possibly not see what you see, or not understand what you understand. But it is not necessarily true, and it is not true in this case. OK, Upright BiPed, I’m going to be frank: I think the reason we have failed to communicate in this conversation is not because I have been difficult, or evasive, or dishonest (obviously), nor do I think it is because you have been. I think it is because I am coming at this as a trained scientist and you are not Now I’m sure this will make you angry, and I guess I wouldn’t blame you. Perhaps you do have a good grasp of scientific methodology, just a very different lingo to the one I was trained in. I do find that transatlantic conversations sometimes founder on this. But I remain of the belief that a lot of the distrust by ID proponents of science arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of scientific methodology and indeed of scientific conclusions. This is not helped, I willingly concede, by people like Dawkins who mount strident atheistic claims on the back of inadequately cautious summaries of scientific conclusions. It makes me wince, frankly, and I think he does science a disservice. Scientific conclusions are necessarily provisional, and necessarily material. The methodology simply does not allow for a non-material conclusion – the best science can do to support the case for supernatural intervention is to fail to provide a natural explanation. To leave a “gap” in other words. Science cannot confirm a God hypothesis. What I have been most sincerely trying to do here has been to get from you a statement of your own ID claim about information (as you know I was originally addressing Dembski’s) that could be cast in a manner in which it could be falsified, so that I could attempt to falsify it. This has, in my view, proved impossible. That is why my retraction is so mealy-mouthed. I think other ID claims are perfectly falsifiable (the claim that Darwinian mechanisms cannot create information by other definitions of information, for instance; or that Chance and Necessity cannot create a Darwinian-capable system in the first place), and I’d have had a good go at any of them. But I cannot tackle yours. And so I concede: I cannot falsify it. If you wish to regard this as a triumph that is fine – if you consider your claim a valid scientific claim, again, that is fine. It stand unrefuted by me, and may prove important :) But I have to concede defeat here.
And when I go out on the net and read the intellectual filth written about men like Dr Torely and Kairos (who practice what they preach) coming from your side of the argument, then I am even more certain that it is not hospitality that divides us.
It is no fairer to blame me for what you think people on “my side” do than it would be for me to blame you for anything people on “your side” do. The fact that you perceive it as an issue of “sides” is at least part of the problem. I had hoped that we might get past that.
So now I am forced to show you graciousness even without your honesty. So in that regard, I once again want to thank you for the conversation. You have been the best partner on UD that I have ever had the pleasure of debating, and I know this conversation took place only because you personally allowed it. And for that, you have my most sincere thanks. (now back to the real world)
Well, thanks, I guess. But, Upright BiPed, to thank me for a conversation in the same breath as impugning my honesty is not gracious. But I will return the thanks, regardless. I do accept that you have tried, and for that I too am grateful. Cheers Lizzie.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 16, 2011
August
08
Aug
16
16
2011
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, This would be a very good time to stop and take stock in what point we are at in this conversation. For the great majority of this conversation over the past two and a half months you have had a singular mantra that you have repeated over and over again. That mantra has been that you needed from me a clean operational definition in order to measure the output of your simulation (so that it might be considered a success). Certainly, at the start of this conversation, that request was completely reasonable by anyone’s standard (although I told you at the time that I would do the describing and you could do the definition). And so, off we went though the observations. During this process of discovery it became evident to you that I was not focusing on a metric to measure informational content. Instead, I was describing the actual entailments that can be observed in any instance of recorded information. This goes to the very heart of my original comment to you that “Darwinian processes don’t have a mechanism to bring information into existence in the first place”. So suddenly, the idea of a nice roomy ambiguous calculation was out the window, and you found yourself faced with a very real and very tight definition; one which leaves virtually no room for doubt. The fact that the definition is so tight is not a matter of anything I have done, but is simply a reflection of the fact that the existence of recorded information happens to be a very special and rare phenomenon with very clean lines of delineation between itself and not-information. In other words, there is either information, or not. Or to be more precise, information can either be confirmed to exist, or it can’t. This very fine line is brought about by the presence of very specific physical objects, and very specific relationships between those physical objects. These are the entailments mentioned above. Recorded information requires discrete physical representations. For one physical thing to represent another, it must have something to establish what is otherwise a non-existent relationship. And the thing that must establish that relationship is yet another physical object, a protocol. The protocol is what allows a representation to be dissociated from what it is to represent, and it allows that representation to create an effect while remaining discrete. There are no instances of recorded information anywhere in the cosmos that do not have these objects and relationships. The question regarding the rise of information is how do these immaterial relationships between physical objects come into a coordinated existence? For me the answer is ‘a living thing’ because there is no evidence otherwise. For you, the answer is inanimate matter under the forces of chance contingency and physical law. As an example of proper empiricism, your simulation was to be an attempt to demonstrate your hypothesis, while mine has already been demonstrated. Weeks ago, you and I had worked our way through these observable objects, and had begun to work our way through the dynamic relationships they must adhere to. It was at this point in the conversation that I brought up the fact that information has a very specific method which must be used in order to confirm its existence. This is the method Nirenberg and Matthaei used to win the Nobel Prize, and it’s the only method known to exist. To confirm the existence of information – any information – one has to isolate the representations, decipher the protocols, and document the effects. Instead of jumping at the chance to adopt this methodology as a sure fire way of confirming the success of your simulation (against all challenges to the contrary) you did the exact opposite. You positioned it as being irrelevant. And it was at this very point that your lone refrain about having an operational definition became a vacuous sideshow (an illegitimate tool, a technique). The fact of the matter (which can be demonstrated by virtue of this recorded conversation) is that you had already written a very good definition of these specific objects and their dynamic relationships to one another, and now you had the only valid method (the operation) of determining if information was indeed present. And this brings us to the point of your last post, where you continue to harp about an operational definition. It puts me in the precarious position of having to dismiss your call for a definition (because you DEMONSTRABLY already have the ONLY OPERATION in existence for the TYPE OF TEST you want to perform) but provides you the strategic and uncharitable opportunity to stand by the Flag of Science and repeat ad nauseam how important operational definitions are to honest empiricism. What fails in this situation, of course, is not just that you already have the operation required for the test, but that having operational definitions are not even the priority of having operational definitions. The priority of having an operational definition is to gain a demonstrated understanding of the issue at hand - and that part of this discussion was demonstrated long ago. Beyond having this demonstrated understanding, the only true moderator of any test is nothing less than plain ole honesty. So now, let us look at your current argument. You said you want to “correlate” the input representation to the output effect. I then turned your mantra for an operational definition back on you and asked “how” you intend to “correlate” the input to the output. Now, certainly, I believe you know very well where I am heading with this question, and that is why you didn’t directly answer it. You know very well that you cannot have a list of iterative inputs and map them to resulting effects and call that information. That does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate the dynamics required by the true presence of information. The input and the output must remain physically discrete, only to be coordinated by the protocol, which is itself physically discrete. Knowing this fact very well, you know and I know that the only valid answer to the question I asked is ...(drumroll please)… to isolate the representations, decipher the protocols, and document the effects ! And so there we have it. Your continuous harping for an operational definition has brought you right back to where we always were - exactly where I told you that we had to be. The very fine definition of inputs, representations, protocols, and effects that were crafted weeks ago, along with the operation that I told you about weeks ago, is all you have ever needed to perform your simulation. I would also like to quickly bring you back to a comment you made earlier in this conversation. You had suggested that if we really really understood each other’s position, then the distinctions would be so clear that in fact the simulation would probably not even be necessary. I took note of a certain amount of personal confidence in that comment. Most assuredly, you made that comment under the idea that I would come to see your point as valid and would concede to it. I doubt with the greatest of doubt that when you wrote those words, you thought ‘I will find that my point is invalid, and will not even need to attempt to prove it’. Now I am certainly willing for you to make that call, but what I see by this demonstration of pointless running around (about not having a valid operation) is that you finally “get it”. In fact, I see once again in your last post how you want to split off from the observations we’ve made, and want to demonstrate nothing more than the Webster’s definition instead (which you already know does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate the verifiable entailments of information). To demonstrate the rise of information, you must demonstrate the rise of the objects and dynamics that are observed in any other instance of recorded information. And that is no easy task (as outlined in post 35 of this thread). You need a mechanism to jump across a gap in physicality; from the physicality of the representation object, to the physicality of the output, without having the representation object ever directly interact with the output. The bridge between the two (the protocol) is yet another physical object, which itself must coordinate the representation to the output, while allowing them to remain separate. Now that may seem like a huge hurdle to jump – which it is for a non-living system – but for a living thing, that entire phenomenon is captured in nothing more than calling an apple and “apple”. If by trying once again to split off from having to demonstrate the actual entailments of recorded information, you are now effectively saying that you cannot produce the simulation, then so be it. That is completely your decision, but whether you attempt the simulation or not, you continue to owe an unambiguous retraction of your comment that:
IDists have failed to demonstrate that what they consider the signature of intentional design is not also the signature of Darwinian evolutionary processes
If an IDist hadn’t made a valid case, then your simulation would not be necessary, so the facts on the ground refute this claim whether or not your simulation ever makes the light of day. We can also be very certain that neither of your previous two begrudging attempts at a retraction reflect any fairness to the evidence at all. - - - - - - - On last thing Dr Liddle, you have withheld your honesty about this situation. And you have personally withheld that honesty from me. By doing so, you have effectively stolen something from me that I was very very enamored with. That something was the chance (and was my premeditated intention) to be as gracious as humanly possible to you if you retracted your remark in fairness and honesty. There are people on this blog (like Dr Torely, Kairosfocus, and others) who will tell me that I myself poisoned the chance to have that opportunity by being too aggressive in the defense of my views of the evidence. I agree with them and will try to emulate their disposition as best I can. But I also disagree with them, in that I don’t think (in actuality) that it is my disposition that causes you to withhold your honesty. And when I go out on the net and read the intellectual filth written about men like Dr Torely and Kairos (who practice what they preach) coming from your side of the argument, then I am even more certain that it is not hospitality that divides us. So now I am forced to show you graciousness even without your honesty. So in that regard, I once again want to thank you for the conversation. You have been the best partner on UD that I have ever had the pleasure of debating, and I know this conversation took place only because you personally allowed it. And for that, you have my most sincere thanks. (now back to the real world)Upright BiPed_{August 16, 2011
August
08
Aug
16
16
2011
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

But you'd better let me know about these categorical variables that don't have variance, UBP ;) They might be my downfall....Elizabeth Liddle_{August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Well, remember I'm only manipulating the inputs so I'm not entirely sure what the outputs are going to be (this isn't ID you know :) But if the effects are continuous, let's say a GLM, and if they are discrete, let's say a chi square. It all boils down to essentially the same math. The important thing is to make sure that it's the patterns in the virtual polymer that are correlated with functional effects (probability of replication or longevity). Then I've done Meyer's Webster. The trickier part will be your inert intermediary. I'm not sure I can do that, as I've said. I mean I can see how it could come about, but I'm not very confident I can demonstrate it in a sim that starts as basically as this one will. Still, if I can do it by Meyer's definition, I'll have something :)Elizabeth Liddle_{August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Actually I was asking you, since it would be you doing it. What do you propose as a method to correlate the input sequence to the output effect?Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Any one you like to dig out of a statistics text book, Upright BiPed, as long as it lends itself to the datatype.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, I hope you'll have chance to respond to my previous post. What is the operational definiton for "correlate" that you propose to use?Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

(hint: correlated the input sequence with the output effects)
I'm sorry Dr Liddle, I don't think the term "correlate" is properly operationalized. Can you offer an appropriate definition of the term?Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
Well, it’s rather like this Dr Liddle – quite obviously, you’ll sit here sanctimoniously clamoring for an operational definition until the cows come home.
No. I've offered several. In fact what we are waiting for is for you to agree that it is an operationalisation of a falsification of your claim.
You’ll do this as if any interested observer at this level of the discussion would be stunned and otherwise dumbfounded by the term “representation” or “mapping” or “protocol” as it relates to the existence and transfer of recorded information. I think that is a bit of a silly notion myself, and in fact, I hate to even bring it up because you’ll take the opportunity to belabor once more the obvious point that good definitons are valuable commodities in research. In my research routine, when we have items that need clarification, we clarify them in the terms of the domain they are understood in, and then we go on about our work. But whether or not I find it silly (or not) is not the issue at hand. The issue in this case is that your approach is mistaken from the start.
Ah. BTW, UBP, talking of your own research: at one point you claimed that a categorical variable had no variance - I never got a response from you on that. Do you still stand by that claim? Because it may explain why you think my "approach is mistaken".
You entered this challenge with the firmly embedded idea that I was going to give you a conceptual definition which you would then operationalize. And in due time you’d take those operationalized terms and use them to stick a thermometer up the output’s butt and check to see if it was “information”.
Yup. A very nice account of an operationalisation, if I may say so. I'm going to recycle that one, if I may.
Do you remember (quite remarkably) objecting that I was trying to dictate “how” the output came into being (when what you really needed was to finally understand that recorded information is confirmed by the relationships between the objects we had discussed)? I even once asked you specifically what you expected to measure (and in the context of my numerous attempts to correct your view) the process of formulating your answer to that question never even phased you.
What I do remember realising, Upright BiPed, was that your definition of information, unlike Dembski's definition of Complex Specified Information (which, if you remember, was what I initially assumed you were talking about) was that for you, information was a process not a product. I also remember saying that I thought this was a much better way of thinking about information, which is why I have suggested that the way we measure it is by means of a correlation between input arrangement and output effect.
Clearly, there is nothing I can do to shake you from this mistaken view. You are so wedded to it that even after weeks and weeks of trying in vain to get you to muster even the slightest bit of imagination and realize that YOUR METHOD is not what is required; I have decided to just give in.
I have totally lost track of the view you think I hold that you think is mistaken. Perhaps if you could just forget the post mortems and tackle the outstanding issues we could save time. Also blood pressure.
You are welcome to use whatever definition satisfies your needs – the one I posted above was the last of a string of attempts, and it at least captures in some part the dynamics involved. So if it pleases you then it pleases me.
It only pleases me if it is an acceptable operationalisation of the falsification of your claim. If it isn't, then I am open to suggestions for emendation.
I am simply rolling the dice that, should your simulation produce anything interesting, those results will be forced by the curiosity (of others, myself included) to be either be validated or invalidated by the proper method, the only method known to mankind which can reliably confirm the existence of information.
Which is? come on, UBP, in your own words please, I don't want another Nirenberg reference. I even suggested it a few posts back (hint: correlated the input sequence with the output effects)
So even if you yourself fail to integrate the appropriate method into your confirmation routine, I am fairly confident such a situation will self-correct should something valuable happen. Good luck with it.
Nope. Not going to bother to falsify a claim that has not been made. Looks like someone had better get a cattle prod.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Well, it’s rather like this Dr Liddle – quite obviously, you'll sit here sanctimoniously clamoring for an operational definition until the cows come home. You’ll do this as if any interested observer at this level of the discussion would be stunned and otherwise dumbfounded by the term “representation” or “mapping” or “protocol” as it relates to the existence and transfer of recorded information. I think that is a bit of a silly notion myself, and in fact, I hate to even bring it up because you'll take the opportunity to belabor once more the obvious point that good definitons are valuable commodities in research. In my research routine, when we have items that need clarification, we clarify them in the terms of the domain they are understood in, and then we go on about our work. But whether or not I find it silly (or not) is not the issue at hand. The issue in this case is that your approach is mistaken from the start.
Google Scholar: (Number of papers with these terms in the title) Representation = 2,690,000 Mapping = 2,960,000 Protocol = 3,640,000
You entered this challenge with the firmly embedded idea that I was going to give you a conceptual definition which you would then operationalize. And in due time you’d take those operationalized terms and use them to stick a thermometer up the output’s butt and check to see if it was “information”. Do you remember (quite remarkably) objecting that I was trying to dictate "how" the output came into being (when what you really needed was to finally understand that recorded information is confirmed by the relationships between the objects we had discussed)? I even once asked you specifically what you expected to measure (and in the context of my numerous attempts to correct your view) the process of formulating your answer to that question never even phased you. Clearly, there is nothing I can do to shake you from this mistaken view. You are so wedded to it that even after weeks and weeks of trying in vain to get you to muster even the slightest bit of imagination and realize that YOUR METHOD is not what is required; I have decided to just give in. You are welcome to use whatever definition satisfies your needs – the one I posted above was the last of a string of attempts, and it at least captures in some part the dynamics involved. So if it pleases you then it pleases me. I am simply rolling the dice that, should your simulation produce anything interesting, those results will be forced by the curiosity (of others, myself included) to be either be validated or invalidated by the proper method, the only method known to mankind which can reliably confirm the existence of information. So even if you yourself fail to integrate the appropriate method into your confirmation routine, I am fairly confident such a situation will self-correct should something valuable happen. Good luck with it.Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

OK, Upright BiPed. Thank you. Do I take it that if I were to succeed with this project, as worded above, that you would consider your claim falsified? If so, I will begin, although it will take a while.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

I always thought it a peculiar tactic to be a visitor on a site, then strike up a conversation and try to move that conversation (and its traffic) elsewhere.
Isn't that what Cornelius Hunter always did with his posts?DrBot_{August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

You don't know what my claim is? Itis possible for you be more disenginuous? How was it possible for you to pen a conceptual definiton of my claim (which was immediately adopted, by the way) if you didn't understand my claim? Would you please explain how that was possible. And how is it that I could have since accepted one of the operational definitons you penned (to what must be assumed was done to your own satisfaction) if you did not understand my claim? And how is it that you could make the judgement within my argument that my "criterion for inferring intelligent design is stricter and more defensible", if you didn't understand it? Please tell me how that is possible?Upright BiPed_{August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply