|
Author
|
Topic: ID and Engineering Principles
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 31. October 2002 10:26
Quote from William Dembski’s address at RAPID:
"The Principle of Methodological Engineering
The reason evolutionary biology has lost all sense of proportion about how much evolution is possible as a result of blind material mechanisms (like random variation and natural selection) is because it floats free of the science of engineering."
In "The Principle of Methodological Engineering" Mr. Dembski has identified both the ‘fatal’ flaw in evolutionary biology as a science and the ‘golden opportunity’ for the science of ID or design. The failure of evolutionary biology (and essentially all of the existing life sciences) to apply and adhere to the engineering principles means there are no requirements to demonstrate that accepted scientific theories actually work. If ID or design science can effectively apply engineering principles then it has the potential to replace evolutionary biology as the only true, ‘hard’ science of ‘evolutionary/design processes’.
The most obvious indication that evolutionary biology does not comply with engineering principles, standards and requirements involves claims of the type ‘evolutionary theory explains ….. ". Evolutionary biology routinely makes claims about the explanatory capabilities of existing theories without actually being able to demonstrate that the theories define processes with the performance capabilities to produce the results claimed. Except for a very few, very limited conditions, evolutionary biologists can not demonstrate that the processes defined by evolutionary theory can produce evolutionary change.
But the failure to adhere to engineering principles impacts the science of evolutionary biology in many less obvious ways. Not only does evolutionary biology not require performance demonstrations, but the principles and standards of evolutionary biology permit rejection of ‘demonstrations of non-performance’. Engineering principles would not permit such rejections.
We might label the engineering ‘non-rejection’ principle ‘engineering integrity’ or ‘engineering accountability’. If someone introduces/proposes a technique for testing some engineering standard or concept, engineering integrity means engineers can not reject the technique without properly evaluating it. As a simple example, assume there is some generally accepted standard for evaluating the safety of bridges and buildings. If someone proposes a new concept or technique suggesting the current standard will fail under specified conditions, engineers would be required to evaluate the new concept or technique. This requirement to seriously evaluate concepts which contradict current standards has a practical implications. If the new technique predicts that bridges or buildings will fail under identified conditions, then the engineers would be viewed as negligent if they failed to seriously evaluate the new technique. Such negligence would make engineers legally liable for damage resulting from ignoring the new techniques.
There has historically been no legal/financial liability for bad evolutionary theories and thus no financial incentive for evolutionary biology to adapt the engineering integrity/accountability standards. [Although if you look closely at some of things happening in genetic engineering, it seems likely that the question of legal liability for bad genetics theories might be tested in the near future.] It is clear from discussions here and from the peer review process, that evolutionary biologists do not adhere to the engineering integrity/accountability standard. [The question of whether theories of evolution are testable has been raised a number of times. It would probably be more useful to consider the issue in terms of the engineering accountability standard. In the absence of the engineering accountability standard, scientists can simply ignore or pretend ignorance of any test or techniques which produce results unfavorable to particular models or theories.]
The above comments are intended only as background. The issue I would like to discuss is not whether evolutionary biology conforms to engineering standards. The issue I would like to discuss is "How can the science of ID or design be formulated to comply with the principles of methodological engineering.
I would suggest that there are at least two key criteria that must be addressed if ID or design science are to satisfy engineering principles. These are:
ACCOUNTABLE ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS- The concept of modifying, improving, or engineering biological designs is not new. There are existing efforts to engineer life forms, to engineer behavior and to engineer human social institutions. Whether any of these are ‘true’ engineering applications is of course open to debate. It could reasonably be argued that true engineering requires 1)objective, independent, pencil-and-paper, verification/evaluation of engineering designs and 2)accountability for designs produced based on the requirement to use the best available evaluation techniques.
The benefits to engineering/applied science applications of discoveries in the pure sciences are widely recognized. The benefits to pure science of objective, real world, independent applied science validation are probably just as important. It can reasonably be argued that it is not possible to have a rigorous, ‘hard science’, pure science without a rigorous applied science using rigorous methodological engineering principles.
INDEPENDANT, OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND STANDARDS- Biological designs are, or can be, observable measurable phenomena. If engineering principles are to be used, the processes responsible for generating biological design must similarly be measurable, quantifiable phenomena. In the absence of processes to define, measure and quantify different types of biological design and the performance of biological design processes, you will never have a true, ‘hard science’, science of design or evolution.
SUMMARY
As Demski properly points out, the failure to follow the principles of methodological engineering is a fundamental flaw in evolutionary biology. But the identified flaw is a two edged sword. ID or design science will exhibit the same flaw unless it can adhere to these engineering principles. IMO, it is feasible to develop a design science which complies with engineering principles. Such a science, however, must address (or first address) the materialistic, measurable, observable aspect of design and design processes.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 02. November 2002 06:40
As discussed above, one of the general criticisms of evolutionary biology is that it makes/permits performance claims that do not meet engineering standards/requirements. Some of the more obvious examples of these improperly supported claims involve evolutionary algorithms or EA’s. Two basic types of improperly supported claims are made with respect to EA’s-
1. EA’s can model, simulate, and/or explain evolutionary change.
2. EA’s can model, simulate and/or explain certain types of human problem solving and/or certain processes by which human generate creative designs.
[Note: At the very least, the impression is created that the above types of claims are being made. ]
The lack of proper ‘engineering’ support for these claims involves at least the following three types of shortcomings:
1. Failure to properly and precisely define EA’s.
2. Failure to properly and precisely define what is being modeled, simulated, and/or explained.
3. Failure to define performance standards.
4. Failure to demonstrate the ability to meet performance standards.
It is useful to look at each of these shortcomings.
1. FAILURE TO PRECISELY DEFINE EA’S
EA’s are part of a very large set of complex mathematical processes which will be labeled ‘information generating machines’ or IGM’s. An IGM is a mathematical sub-system or logic machine that generates or extracts information by interacting with an external environment.
IGM’s as stated are complex mathematical ‘logic machines’ or computers. [The mathematics concepts/techniques underlying IGM’s are relatively complex and would be an appropriate subject for an extended technical/mathematical discussion. I will be glad to pursue such a discussion with anyone interested.] Three features of IGM’s are of immediate concern here. First, the operation of an IGM is expressed as logic machine program which defines continuous ongoing processing operations. Second, IGM’s involve ‘variance operations’- operations that a)create new forms of variance, and b)operations that access or select from an existing set of variations. Third IGM’s contain selection processes- processes that choose between options based on interaction with the external environment.
The definitions of EA’s are ambiguous because they fail to define what types of variance processes and what types of selection processes are included. If, as suggested by evolutionary theory, EA’s are limited to variance involving ‘random fluctuations from a defined set of options’ and selection involving ‘Darwinian Natural Selection’, then the term EA refers to a very limited type of machine with very limited design/information generating capacities. If the term EA refers to any type of variance and any type of selection, then EA’s are unrelated to any evolutionary theories or models. No current evolutionary theory suggests evolution is the result of the interaction of ‘any type of selection and any type of variance’.
2. FAILURE TO PRECISELY DEFINE WHAT IS BEING MODELED
EA applications/demonstrations are generally of the form- ‘This EA system found a solution to this specific problem. This finding suggests that EA systems could explain a)human problem solving or b)evolutionary change." The conclusion extrapolations from the specific EA results are not justified, by engineering standards, because there does not exist a precise definition showing that the phenomena models/simulated is representative of either human problem solving or evolutionary change.
Practical applications of EA systems find optimal solutions to problems from very large sets of possible solutions based on very complex fitness landscapes. There is no evidence that a)humans have the ability to find such optimal solutions or that b)the techniques used by EA systems bare any particular relationship to how people solve problems. [There are techniques which appear to make it possible to precisely define both ‘what designs human intelligence creates’ and ‘the processes humans use to create these designs". Again, I would be happy to discuss this rather technical topic with anyone interested.]
There is a precise definition of ‘DNA sequences of genes’ thus precise definitions of changes in ‘DNA codes for genes’. The suggestion/hypothesis that ‘changes in DNA codes of genes’ corresponds to ‘evolutionary change’ is an unsupported assertion due to the lack of a demonstrable genotype to phenotype mapping. The fact that most people ‘believe’ such a mapping exists and will someday be discovered is not a valid basis to support the existence of the mapping from an engineering perspective. [There does appear to be a genotype-phenotype mapping from point in time ‘gene plus gene status code’ to phenotypes but such a mapping would not be compatible with existing evolutionary theory. Again, I will be happy to discuss this technical modeling topic.]
3. FAILURE TO DEFINE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
EA systems and IGM’s can be viewed as computers. Like computers, measures can be developed to quantify various performance characteristics. Measures would include speed of generating information, complexity or volume of information at a point in time, efficiency, and storage capacity. Such measures could also be developed to measure the performance of biological systems. [There are numerous useful performance measures that can be defined. Again I will be happy to discuss the technical aspects of these measures.]
Despite the fact that EA’s are widely claimed to be capable of modeling both evolutionary change and human problem solving, standards for measuring performance have not been developed.
4. FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
If the phenomena being analyzed are not precisely defined and if performance standards are not defined, then, quite obviously, it is not possible to demonstrate that EA models or systems can match or fail to match the performance standards of biological systems.
SUMMARY
The argument historically has been that it was not feasible or practical to apply engineering principles and standards to the analysis of evolutionary change or to the analysis of human problem/solving or intelligence. Given advances in technology, particularly advances in computer technology, this argument is no longer valid.
Mathematical/logical forms (IGM’s) exist for measuring and modeling the information generating features of biological systems. The question is not whether evolutionary biology and other life science ‘can’ meet the standards/requirements/principles of engineering integrity, but whether they ‘want’ to meet these standards.
If evolutionary biology can comply with the principle of methodological engineering, but voluntarily determines to avoid compliance with the principle, then any misleading claims resulting from failure to comply, represent ‘intentionally misleading claims’. It would appear, based on the available evidence, that claims by evolutionary biologists that EA’s can model, simulate, or explain evolutionary would qualify as intentionally misleading.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 02. November 2002 13:16
Warren
quote:
If evolutionary biology can comply with the principle of methodological engineering, but voluntarily determines to avoid compliance with the principle, then any misleading claims resulting from failure to comply, represent ‘intentionally misleading claims’. It would appear, based on the available evidence, that claims by evolutionary biologists that EA’s can model, simulate, or explain evolutionary would qualify as intentionally misleading.
I hope that the moderator will take notice of Warren's 'contributions to a 'meaningful discussion' free of ad hominems.
Such meaningless and needless accusations should not be needed and merely tend to undermine one's argument.
In this case I strongly oppose the suggestion, without ANY evidence, that there biologists applying EA's are intentionally misleading.
Disappointed...
If Warren wants to argue that evidence was offered then I wonder under what concept of evidence we are operating.
F.
[ 02. November 2002, 16:34: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 02. November 2002 14:05
Frances,
I outlined in some detail the evidence supporting the conclusion you find objectionable. If you fail to address the evidence/argument presented, it is a flawed argument to claim no evidence was offered. I am not even sure what part of my argument you find objectionable. Do you disagree with the claim that evolutionary biology does not comply with the ‘principles of methodological engineering’ with respect to claims that EA’s can model, simulate and/or explain evolutionary change? Do you disagree that evolutionary biologists make such claims? Or do you disagree with the technical claim that it is feasible to comply with engineering principles?
Evolutionary biology operate under certain standards and principles and does not operate under other standards and principles. To suggest that the standards and principles being used are less than perfect is not a personal attack.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 07. November 2002 16:11
Warren,
I think it's productive for ID to explore a design methodology by focusing upon standards of design. While the overall process phases of engineering (Requirements, Design, Build, Test, Maintain) have relevance, the issue regarding evidence for inferring ID must come primarily from the methodology of design first.
The engineering process of design is in the allocation of requirements across the finished products. While there are various techiques of design (i.e. ad hoc, structured, distibuted, etc...) certain design techniques would lend themselves to reverse engineering (and therefore inferrence) than others.
While it may prove difficult to credibly infer an intelligently-directed, ad-hoc design from a natural process, other design techniques should leave tell-tale signs indicative of the design process used. The question here then is in identifying sufficent indicators of these design processes when applied to biological constructs. The examine existing biological constructs for comparison.
What are the design processes of genetic engineering, and how do the different genetic engineering design processes leave indicators in the finished desgin? Can one identify the design process used through analysis of the finsihed genetic material?
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 08. November 2002 07:45
Irving,
Quote: What are the design processes of genetic engineering, and how do the different genetic engineering design processes leave indicators in the finished desgin? Can one identify the design process used through analysis of the finsihed genetic material?
Biological design processes are incredibly powerful/complex. Biological design processes involve the use/generation of huge volumes of information. The life time of an organisms involves the generation and utilization of at least something like 10^10,000th bits of information in addition to the information in the genetic code.
The first useful feature of applying engineering principles is recognizing that it is absurd to suggest that biological design and design processes can be explained by EA processes that generate a few bits of information per lifetime. As I have discussed elsewhere, there is a set of mathematical processes algorithms capable of generating the magnitude of intelligence associated with life forms, but there are not EA’s.
The second ‘useful’ observation from applying engineering principles is recognizing that you will never learn very much about design or design processes by looking only at the results produced. Biological design processes are extremely complex and powerful. Far, far more complex and powerful than any existing computer. To ever hope to understand biological design we need to be able to look at 1)the mathematics of design, 2)the internal workings of design process AND 3)the external results produced by design processes. Inferring design processes by looking at genetic code can not be productive.
The third useful observation from applying engineering principles to the analysis of design processes is recognition that scientific analysis can never produce ‘inferences of non-materialistic designers or design processes’. The set of possible materialistic explanations of biological design and design processes is so large and so comprehensive that no scientific observation will ever lack a materialistic explanation.
It is sometimes suggested that science rejects non-materialistic explanations. This is not and has never been true. Science is a set of processes to evaluate the relative merits of different materialistic, deterministic, testable models, explanations or theories. Since the supply of potential materialistic explanations is inexhaustible, science will never eliminate materialistic explanations and will never get to the point of needing to consider non-materialistic explanations and models.
The design inferences discussed in ID are the result of demonstrating conflicts between ‘observable evidence’ and ‘Darwinian beliefs’. The design inference arguments are of the form "If you accept the validity of Darwinian beliefs then evidence suggests logical contradiction which implies intelligent designers (or any other conclusion one wishes to imply)." All ID analysis shows is that Darwinian beliefs are not valid, and the arguments used to support Darwinian beliefs are unsound.
As I have discussed elsewhere, not only are the ‘inferences of an external designer’ invalid from a scientific perspective, but they are also invalid from a theological perspective. The suggestion that some group of individuals such as geneticists can perform a materialistic test which demonstrates the existence or non-existence of a deity suggests these individuals can ‘outsmart a deity’. The concept or principle that some select group of humans is as smart or smarter than a deity is not a principle acceptable in most religions or theologies.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 08. November 2002 17:33
Warren thanks for the reply,
quote:
The second ‘useful’ observation from applying engineering principles is recognizing that you will never learn very much about design or design processes by looking only at the results produced. Biological design processes are extremely complex and powerful. Far, far more complex and powerful than any existing computer. To ever hope to understand biological design we need to be able to look at 1)the mathematics of design, 2)the internal workings of design process AND 3)the external results produced by design processes. Inferring design processes by looking at genetic code can not be productive.
Can't say I agree just yet. Inferrig design by looking at the genetic code may be productive. We just don't know yet.
quote:
As I have discussed elsewhere, not only are the ‘inferences of an external designer’ invalid from a scientific perspective, but they are also invalid from a theological perspective. The suggestion that some group of individuals such as geneticists can perform a materialistic test which demonstrates the existence or non-existence of a deity suggests these individuals can ‘outsmart a deity’. The concept or principle that some select group of humans is as smart or smarter than a deity is not a principle acceptable in most religions or theologies.
Can't say I agree here either. I can agree that desgin can't be proven, but that's not what I'm looking at. The question is, can design be inferred? That's quite different than proving. I think this is also consistent theologically. Origin theories can never be proven, only lent credibility. I find it perfectly possible that a diety would place just enough hints so that no matter how advanced our technology becomes, a definitive answer regarding the orgin of life will never be decided--and must be taken on faith.
However, I didin't think the purposes of this thread was to discuss theology, but look at engineering methodologies. To that end, I would consider certain indicators of intelligent design can be descerned through the investigation of life's design. Is life designed for future expansion? Is there a reserve capacity of performance? Is the importance of certain components for future expansion (rather than purely vestigal)? While not definitive, I would consider issues such as these indicators of structured design rather than ad hoc.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 11. November 2002 10:08
Irving,
I guess I am not making the point clear. What I am saying is that if 1)you analyze design using ‘engineering standard’ science, and 2)if you define design and design processes in terms of teleological or intelligent causation, then there is neither an ‘intelligent designer inference’ nor the logical possibility of such an inference. This concept or principle of engineering standard science is apparently not generally recognized.
Engineering standards science is a systematic/progressive search of a materialistic/deterministic ‘solution space’. An engineering standards search/analysis has two essential features. First, the search is progressive. New knowledge continuously improves the model or theory. Second, the search is ongoing and the search space is never exhausted. No matter what discoveries are made, there are always additional discoveries that are logically possible and the set of possible deterministic/materialistic explanations is never exhausted.
The ‘endless, progressive’ nature of engineering standard science is readily apparent if you look at something like bridge building where new discoveries will forever lead to the ability to build better bridges. Because engineering standard science has not previously been used in formulating models and theories of biological design and design processes, the endless progressive nature of deterministic/materialistic theories and models may not be as recognizable.
Engineering standard science can develop models, simulations, explanations of the origin of life, but such models are based on currently repeatable, testable, verifiable processes. In terms of engineering standards science, the actual occurrences which created life would be unknowable and speculative, but the processes proposed as explanations would be currently testable. One of the obvious indications that evolutionary biology is not ‘engineering standards science’ is the fact that evolutionary biology proposes explanations in terms of one time ‘chance’ events which occurred in the distant past. Such explanations are not acceptable in engineering standard science.
It is clear from the discussions here and elsewhere that ‘engineering standards science’ is not new, but its application to the analysis of biological design and biological design processes is new. In order to apply engineering standards science to the analysis of design it is necessary to
1. Understand what engineering standards science is
2. Solve the technical problems associated with a particular application.
3. Have individuals with the knowledge of, understanding of, and commitment to engineering standard science.
Looking at issues like ‘intelligent designer inferences’ and ‘EA’s’ provide a useful basis for identifying and discussing the differences between engineering standards science and current forms of ID and evolutionary biology.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 15. January 2003 17:09
quote:
I guess I am not making the point clear. What I am saying is that if 1)you analyze design using ‘engineering standard’ science, and 2)if you define design and design processes in terms of teleological or intelligent causation, then there is neither an ‘intelligent designer inference’ nor the logical possibility of such an inference. This concept or principle of engineering standard science is apparently not generally recognized.
Okay, I guess I'm still not clear on this. Could you indulge me with one more attempt at explaination? While I could agree that by examination of the finished product we can't exactly determine the method of manufacture, we can reverse engineer the design. Various design methodologies leave tell-tale signs of their process in the finished design. The completed design from an ad hoc methodology is significantly different than a structured one. I would also suggest that certain design methodologies provide a greater inferrence of intelligent design than others.
quote:
In terms of engineering standards science, the actual occurrences which created life would be unknowable and speculative, but the processes proposed as explanations would be currently testable. One of the obvious indications that evolutionary biology is not ‘engineering standards science’ is the fact that evolutionary biology proposes explanations in terms of one time ‘chance’ events which occurred in the distant past. Such explanations are not acceptable in engineering standard science.
I'm in agreement here, but the actual creation occurances are a method of manufacture--distinctly different than the design methodology. I also agree that explainations provided by evolutionary biology are not acceptable according to engineering standards.
quote:
It is clear from the discussions here and elsewhere that ‘engineering standards science’ is not new, but its application to the analysis of biological design and biological design processes is new.
Yes. I could be convinced of this also. While I'm too new to make a comprehensive statement, the current active threads indicate an over abundnce of the traditional life science perspective and analysis. The announced objective of Brainstorms is to develp new ideas relating to Information, Complexity, and Design of complex systems. While life is indeed a complex system, it is not the only one. Many discussions could no doubt gain valuable insight from professions who design for a living, as well as those who investigate the design of already existing systems. I believe that is the intent of this forum.
None of this is to detract from the many excellent threads and contributers to this forum. Perhaps others (or even the moderator?) can help me out. Is the primary purpose of Brainstorms an evaluation of Intelligent Design as it relates to biological systems, or is it a forum for the discussion of design concepts for complex information systems in general?
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 16. January 2003 07:23
Irving,
If you check our FAQ, the purpose of Brainstorms is to "brainstorm" about complex systems in general. ID type discussions seem to dominate, and that is understandable because ISCID is home to many ID type fellows. The vision, however, of ISCID is not to advocate ID, but to provide a neutral ground where materialists and non-materialists, reductionists and non-reductionists, physicalists and non-physicalists can all hash out their preliminary ideas on a wide-array of subjects. We therefore welcome the ideas of ID, but our policy here is that rather than be an advocacy group for a theory that has yet to refine (and prove) itself, we will be an open forum for a wide variety of persepectives to be explored as they relate to complex systems.
The fundamental difference between Brainstorms/ISCID and many other groups is that we take a fairly rare functional role. Consider this:
1. We refuse to restrict inquiry, even in regard to some of the more speculative ideas out there. We believe it is more healthy to let ideas die on their own in healthy competition. Therefore, we don't impose artificial constraints like materialism, reductionism or physicalism (though we don't discriminate against those who do work under such frameworks - we prefer opening up inquiry)
2. We refuse to advocate for a particular theory or group. Our goal is to diversify our activities and members as much as possible towards the end of creating a community of scholars who can freely share ideas without having to conform those ideas to a certain, restrictive framework.
[ 16. January 2003, 07:27: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 16. January 2003 08:53
Irving,
Quote: Okay, I guess I'm still not clear on this. Could you indulge me with one more attempt at explaination? While I could agree that by examination of the finished product we can't exactly determine the method of manufacture, we can reverse engineer the design. Various design methodologies leave tell-tale signs of their process in the finished design. The completed design from an ad hoc methodology is significantly different than a structured one. I would also suggest that certain design methodologies provide a greater inferrence of intelligent design than others.
There are at least two types of issues here- 1)the philosophy of science issue and 2)the manufacture process versus end design issue. I will attempt to address both.
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Science viewed from an engineering perspective is a rigorous process of developing, testing, and validating predictive mathematical models of causal relationships. It is essential, from this perspective, that the predictive theories developed produce highly reliable predictions which can be used in engineering solutions to problems. The engineering perspective recognizes and accepts the existence of non-predictable, and non-materialistic phenomena. The existence of external designers is not incompatible with the engineering approach to science. But one would not expect to find evidence for such phenomena in formal scientific analysis, because the purpose of scientific analysis is to look for models or theories of causal relationships that are predictive.
If formal analysis, analysis of the type performed by Dembski for example, did suggest or imply the operation of an external designer, the inclination, from an engineering perspective, would be question the assumptions underlying the conclusion. Dembski, for example, assumes that evolutionary processes are unlikely to produce, over a few billion years, a design with a complexity greater than 10^150. While this assumption is reasonable if you also assume that Darwinian theory is valid, there are alternative models or theories of evolution, such as the one I am proposing, which can easily generate designs of complexity far in excess of 10^10,000.
MANUFACTURE VERSUS THE END DESIGN
As you point out, there is an important difference between the manufacture process and a design based on reverse engineering the end product. It making the distinction, it is also important to note that we have the ability to analyze and construct models of biological manufacture processes. Scientists can observe/analyze in detail the process of manufacturing an amino acid or protein. It is my understanding that they can develop detailed predictive models of these manufacture processes using assembly instructions. It is my understanding they can at least partially test the validity of the assembly instruction models by applying them in the lab to actually simulate parts of the biological manufacture process.
My proposal, which seems to be actively ignored, is that evolution change involves biological design processes operating to modify assembly instructions. This proposal is obviously incompatible with Darwinian evolutionary theory, since it requires very complex coordinated biological design process to produce even simple changes in design (even very small changes in the size of shape of a wing, for example, would require at least thousands of coordinated changes in assembly/manufacture instruction). In support of my approach/theory, complex coordinated changes in assembly instructions appear to be the rule rather than the exception in biological systems. When a child turns out to be significantly taller than his or her parent, we seldom see major distortions in proportions of different features. Such distortion would be expected to be the rule rather than the exception, as would be expected if the change represented a random change in design.
Quote: The announced objective of Brainstorms is to develp new ideas relating to Information, Complexity, and Design of complex systems. While life is indeed a complex system, it is not the only one. Many discussions could no doubt gain valuable insight from professions who design for a living, as well as those who investigate the design of already existing systems. I believe that is the intent of this forum.
I strongly agree with these comments. Especially since the development of the computer, a great deal has been learned about formally modeling and analyzing design and design processes. This knowledge clearly has not been assimilated into many of the life science. If the current knowledge of design and design processes were recognized by evolutionary biologists, no one would be seriously suggesting that complex designs can be produced or even modified effectively by a one cycle per lifetime design process.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 16. January 2003 19:24
Okay Warren we may be getting closer here.
quote:
The existence of external designers is not incompatible with the engineering approach to science. But one would not expect to find evidence for such phenomena in formal scientific analysis, because the purpose of scientific analysis is to look for models or theories of causal relationships that are predictive.
Okay, if one defines formal scientific analysis in such a scope then you may have a point; however, I would consider Forensics a scientific analysis of tangible evidence that CAN lead to the inferrence of intelligent activity.
quote:
Dembski, for example, assumes that evolutionary processes are unlikely to produce, over a few billion years, a design with a complexity greater than 10^150. While this assumption is reasonable if you also assume that Darwinian theory is valid, there are alternative models or theories of evolution, such as the one I am proposing, which can easily generate designs of complexity far in excess of 10^10,000.
Certianly many processes can produce extremely high levels of complexity...though Dembski applies the adjective "specified" to complexity. The contentiousness is in the somewhat murky definition of Specified. Dembski identifies "specified" as a recognizable pattern. Now if I understand it correctly, Behe offers up Irreducible Complexity as an example of Specified Complexity. Under Behe then, complexity doesn't have to be high, merely irreducible.
quote:
It is my understanding that they can develop detailed predictive models of these manufacture processes using assembly instructions. It is my understanding they can at least partially test the validity of the assembly instruction models by applying them in the lab to actually simulate parts of the biological manufacture process.
Certainly this is true, the entire biotechnology industry is built upon just such a foundation. However when reverse engineering, it is not always possible to determine the exact method of manufacture unless the manufacturing process leaves tell-tale signs. However the design can be determined and the design replicated under one of possibly many different manufacturing processes.
quote:
My proposal, which seems to be actively ignored, is that evolution change involves biological design processes operating to modify assembly instructions. This proposal is obviously incompatible with Darwinian evolutionary theory, since it requires very complex coordinated biological design process to produce even simple changes in design (even very small changes in the size of shape of a wing, for example, would require at least thousands of coordinated changes in assembly/manufacture instruction).
I'd need to hear more about your biological design process with careful distinctions drawn between biological design versus biological manufacture.
quote:
I strongly agree with these comments. Especially since the development of the computer, a great deal has been learned about formally modeling and analyzing design and design processes. This knowledge clearly has not been assimilated into many of the life science.
Perhaps the clarity is due to each discipline using terms whose defintion carries different meanings within their respective disciplines. Though, as said, design engineeringers would find some biological suggestions stunning.
For example, some responses I've seen to Behe's Irreducible Complexity concept deal with organisims co-opting existing structures to perform a new function. Superficially it sounds reasonable. For a design engineer it isn't. It is trivial to gather Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) components; however, it is extremely difficult to integrate them together. I get the impression that some biologists are of the opinion that the development of the individual components is difficult, but that co-opting them is the trivial part. To a design engineer, the belief that individually developed components could suddenly and simultaneously work together to perform a new function (unless pre-designed for just such an occurance) is pretty near impossible.
Now I don't know if Behe's examples are really irreducibly complex, or if there are different theories on how such things may have evolved. I just use this one concept as an example of how certain theories may seem totally reasonable to one discipline and absurd to another.
[ 16. January 2003, 19:29: Message edited by: Irving ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 17. January 2003 09:48
Irving,
Quote: Okay, if one defines formal scientific analysis in such a scope then you may have a point; however, I would consider Forensics a scientific analysis of tangible evidence that CAN lead to the inferrence of intelligent activity.
And I would argue that it is possible and practical to develop predictive, mathematical models and theories of the intelligent activity associated with biological systems. I propose that intelligent activity is a dynamic and teleological activity. A theory of intelligent activity, I propose, has the general form "Under ideal conditions, the intelligent activity X will produce the design Y most likely in increase the likelihood of goal G’.
To formally test such a theory it is first recognized that the real world manifestation of X will have some degree or level of inefficiency. The validity of the theory is confirmed by finding a known process X* which can be modeled mathematically and which can match or exceed the production of Y or produce Y* which is more likely to increase the likelihood of G. As in engineering, a design science theory models an idealized process or machine (in the example here, an idealized machine exhibiting intelligent activity). The model or theory is characterized as valid as long as the proposed idealized machine can match or outperform the real world manifestation being tested. [Note the theory construction/testing processes are iterative. If in performing a test the real world manifestation outperforms the theory then the theory must be modified. Also, the theory or model may suggest how the real world manifestation can be improved. ]
Quote: I'd need to hear more about your biological design process with careful distinctions drawn between biological design versus biological manufacture.
The prime difficulty in analyzing biological design is that it is very complex. Terms such as multi-leveled, dynamic, self programming, adaptive and self adjusting can all be applied to biological design processes. To understand biological design it is useful to recognize multiple levels such as
1. Physical objects generated
2. The designs or assembly instructions which produce and modify the physical objects.
3. The processes which produce and modify assembly instructions
4. The processes which produce and modify the processes which produce and modify assembly instructions.
5. etc.
Because biological systems ‘operate on themselves’, the analysis of biological design processes can be limited to three levels-
1. Biological designs (which are causal relationships such as assembly instructions)
2. Biological design processes which modify biological designs and
3. Processes operating to modify biological design processes.
In the terminology I use, all three levels involve dynamic and teleological causal relationships. It is important to note that any type of formal analysis will not attempt to analyze all aspects of all biological design processes from the beginning of time to the creation of the Mona Lisa. Formal analysis will generally focus on very narrow limited aspects of biological design processes. To illustrate some of the concepts involved, it will be useful to consider some of the ‘assembly instructions’ associated with growth and development.
The question to be considered, is when and how do biological design processes operate to modify ‘assembly instructions’. Basic neo-Darwinian theory suggests that the form of a fully developed organism is determined by genetic material. This is equivalent to the assumption that developmental assembly or manufacture instructions are static or unchanging during the developmental process.
But we know from practical applications that rigid or static instructions are not very reliable. Successful completion of a complex assembly generally requires adjustable instructions that can be modified based on feedback. In effect, complex manufacture requires not instructions based on what to do, but instructions based on how to accomplish a goal. In the terminology used here, complex assembly requires instructions that are adaptable or dynamic and teleological rather than instructions that are static, unchanging or permanent and universal.
It should not be difficult to test and demonstrate that assembly instructions associated with biological systems are dynamic and teleological rather than permanent and universal. In other terminology, it is not difficult to show(and in fact is probably obvious) that the assembly instructions associated with biological systems are adaptive or modifiable rather than simple deterministic instructions. Since neo-Darwinian theory requires a deterministic mapping from genotype to phenotype, demonstrating that assembly instructions are dynamic and teleological invalidates neo-Darwinian theory.
The discussion here covers a lot of material. I will be happy to try to clarify any feature which may be confusing. The concepts being presented are fairly straight forward. Using known engineering concepts and techniques we can develop mathematical/logical models of design processes as complex machines. Using the format described we can develop testable, predictive, mathematical theories of biological design processes. Applying these techniques to the analysis of developmental processes, we can demonstrate that the logical form of ‘biological manufacture or assembly instructions’ is not the type of assembly instruction assumed by and required by neo-Darwinian theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 18. January 2003 22:18
quote:
I propose that intelligent activity is a dynamic and teleological activity. A theory of intelligent activity, I propose, has the general form "Under ideal conditions, the intelligent activity X will produce the design Y most likely in increase the likelihood of goal G’.
Okay two things here...1. Proposing that an intelligent activity is a teleological activity seems redundant to me. So I'm missing something in the statement...what? 2. I'm not sure that a specific design is predictible without long study of the designer...and how do you know your not dealing with a team of designers? Let's seperate the design of a mechanism from the final manifestation of that mechanism. More than one possible design may end up with an equivilent increase in the likelyhood of goal 'G'.
I can give the same requirements to ten different designers and get ten different designs, yet all of them satisfy the requirements. In almost all cases, the background and experience of the designer is reflected in the design methodology, and therefore in the finished design (note: I haven't gotten to the manufacturing yet).
After a lot of cases, I could, blindly given ten designs, match them up with the particular designer. With even more experience with the designers I can begin to predict the design methodology each designer will choose based upon the requirements set I give out.
So going back to your general form, I can offer the following definitions:
X = The Designer
Y = The Design
G = The Requirements
Therefore:
Given G, and sufficient knowledge of X, I can predict Y. I can gain knowledge of X by studying Y(x) and reverse enginineering G. However this only works if I can attribute each Y to a specific X.
quote:
To formally test such a theory it is first recognized that the real world manifestation of X will have some degree or level of inefficiency. The validity of the theory is confirmed by finding a known process X* which can be modeled mathematically and which can match or exceed the production of Y or produce Y* which is more likely to increase the likelihood of G.
Okay, my mistake...X is the design methodology. Therefore given a specific set of requirements, and a defined design methodology, you're proposing that the design can be predicted?
Hmmm...only to the level of specificity that the methodology mandates.
quote:
The prime difficulty in analyzing biological design is that it is very complex.
So are a lot of things in our modern, technological world. That's why design methodologies have been developed. Ad Hoc wasn't getting the job done anymore.
quote:
In other terminology, it is not difficult to show(and in fact is probably obvious) that the assembly instructions associated with biological systems are adaptive or modifiable rather than simple deterministic instructions. Since neo-Darwinian theory requires a deterministic mapping from genotype to phenotype, demonstrating that assembly instructions are dynamic and teleological invalidates neo-Darwinian theory.
Okay, I get what your saying now...thanks for the extra explainations.
quote:
The discussion here covers a lot of material.
Yes, but not quite as bad as I first thought. It seems that first you need to decide if biological design processes are unique to biological systems, and if so, at what level. I would anticipate that the manufacturing process is unique, but that the design methodology may share high-level concepts that are unique to intelligent activity and therefore may possibly be shared with human design methodologies.
So, where do you plan to go from here? The demonstration that biological assembly instructions are not permanent and universal? (I think that may be more difficult than you might otherwise think).
[ 18. January 2003, 22:20: Message edited by: Irving ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 20. January 2003 20:15
Irving,
Quote: So, where do you plan to go from here? The demonstration that biological assembly instructions are not permanent and universal? (I think that may be more difficult than you might otherwise think).
The issue of nature of assembly instruction is, IMO, an interesting one. My statement was "In the terminology used here, complex assembly requires instructions that are adaptable or dynamic and teleological rather than instructions that are static, unchanging or permanent and universal."
In simplest form, this means the assembly instructions can and are modified to adjust for environmental conditions. The assembly instructions are based not on ‘what to do’ but ‘what is to be accomplished’. There is a lot of engineering examples of the use of assembly instructions which use environmental information (feedback) to achieve goals or objectives. Many biological assembly processes are clearly modifiable, adaptable, or dynamic and goal-oriented.
We can carry this analysis a bit further by recognizing that biological assembly processes can be divided into three components - 1)genetic codes, 2)the ‘machinery’ or set of processes that operate to transforms codes into a living organism(also called front loading), and 3)the within lifetime information processing which adapts or adjusts the organisms to changing environmental conditions.
Neo-Darwinian theory recognizes that genetic codes are changeable and changes are compatible with the goal of survival(dynamic and teleological). We have ample evidence that the within lifetime information processing can and does modify the assembly associated with genetic codes.
It seems fairly obvious that in addition to genetic code, the machinery which operates to transform codes can evolve (is dynamic and teleological), the within lifetime information processing is dynamic and teleological, and the processes which make these phenomena dynamic and teleological are themselves dynamic and teleological.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic