|
Author
|
Topic: Terms You'd Like to See in the ISCID Encyclopedia...
|
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 21. February 2003 14:08
I'm going to throw some terms I've jotted down as I've run across them in my readings this semester...
Computer Science
Neural Network
Artificial Intelligence
Frame Problem
Search Heuristic
Evolutionary Algorithm
Hill Climbing Search
A* Search
Simulated Annealing
Biology
Point mutation
Gene duplication
Pseudogenes
Metabolic pathways
Transcription
Frame shifts
Protein folding
Engineering
Feedback loops
Design Redundancy
IP: Logged
|
|
RB
Member
Member # 263
|
posted 21. February 2003 14:24
Can we suggest definitions or changes to definitions?
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 21. February 2003 15:28
It would be nice to know what ID advocates mean by the following terms:
- Intelligence
- Design
- Irreducible Complexity
- Causation
- Causal specificity
- Mechanism
- Mechanistic [theory/hypothesis]
Erik
[ 21. February 2003, 16:36: Message edited by: Erik ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 21. February 2003 16:28
I trust that you're aware that the definition of "Computational Irreducibility" in the ISCID Encyclopedia is word-for-word identical with the definition given at this site. While that external site is given under "Web Resources on Computational Irreducibility," there is no additional information on the topic at the site referenced, just a repetition of the same definition.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 21. February 2003 16:39
Because of the misunderstandings I've seen on ARN, ISCID, and some texts by ID advocates, I offer the following terms and definitions:
Optimization problem: An optimization problem consists of a set of points, representing potential solutions, and an objective function (or cost function) measuring how good (or bad) any given point is. Usually, one wants an efficient way to search through the set of potential solutions for the one with the highest (or lowest) value of the objective function (or cost function).
Fitness function: 1. A way to describe the dynamics of gene or genotype frequencies in populations of reproducing individuals. The fitness function measures the (potential for) reproductive success of any individual in a given environment.
2. A synonym for objective function. (Note: A Genetic Algorithm is an optimization algorithm that makes use of a population of artificially reproducing test solutions and works by enforcing the condition that the fitness function, in sense 1, for this population is equal to the objective function. Note that the objective function is input to the genetic algorithm, while process of forcing the fitness function, in sense 1, to be equal to the objective function is a part of the algorithm itself. Because of the wide-spread popularity of genetic algorithms, the term fitness function has taken on the same meaning as the term objective function.)
Erik
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 21. February 2003 17:52
RBH,
Yes we are aware. The entry is being used as data for testing out our BETA system and will be removed when we move into production. Right now, the Encyclopedia is very early in development, even on the technical side of things (for example, the algorithm for finding "Related Terms" is certainly not perfect yet!)
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 21. February 2003 23:38
quote:
Entropy
A quantitative measure of the disorder of a system and inversely related to the amount of energy available to do work in a system. The more energy has become dispersed, the less work it can perform and the greater the entropy. Biological systems are highly organized, carry out numerous work cycles, and therefore have low entropy.
I suggest the site secondlaw.com.
Now the questions:
Is the reason that biological systems could be considered “low entropy” because they have these numerous work cycles and are highly organized? Or is it because they burn well? How does the entropy in the boundary of a person compare just before his death to the entropy in that same boundary just after death? (After death he quits eating, and may become closer to an “isolated system”, but of course is still subject to numerous effects from thermal transfer, oxidation, and other objects crossing the system boundary. As a matter of fact, when he cools off is his entropy decreasing? If so then the immediate effect of death is an increase in the “order”?)
How does the entropy of a person compare to the entropy of a container of gasoline of the same mass? (I don’t know the answer to that, but I’m sure that there are some examples of simple chemical materials of the same mass that have much lower “entropy” than a human of the same mass. The human is mostly water, having little free energy as compared to the oxygen and hydrogen from which it is formed. But note that the free energy has little to do with the entropy in a direct sense, as systems with the same entropy can have dramatically different levels of free energy. The free energy is significant when within an isolated system the amount of free energy decreases -- then the entropy must increase.)
[ 21. February 2003, 23:51: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Art
Member
Member # 179
|
posted 22. February 2003 00:37
I'd echo RB with this unacceptably short post - are we to be thinking about corrections to entries already made, or are we to limit our brainstorming to just suggestions for additional terms?
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 22. February 2003 07:14
Let me clarify:
In this thread you can:
1. Suggest new terms that you'd like to be included
2. New terms plus suggested information on the term
3. Corrections/additions to terms already in the encyclopedia
BTW, Art, in this thread, the length of your post doesn't matter;-)
[ 22. February 2003, 09:37: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 22. February 2003 09:52
Gedanken,
I'm not sure if this answers any of your questions...
From an article I'm reading for class:
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~mona/IntroMaterials/hunter-bio-for-CS.pdf
"Living things obey all the laws of chemistry and physics, including the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the amount of entropy (disorder) in the universe is always increasing. The consumption of energy is the only way to create order in the face of entropy. Life doesn’t violate the second law; living things capture energy in a variety of forms, use it to create internal order, and then transfer energy back to the environment as heat. An increase in organization within a cell is coupled with a greater increase in disorder outside the cell."
[ 22. February 2003, 09:52: Message edited by: Micah Sparacio ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 22. February 2003 11:13
The term I would like to see defined is science.
As to "entropy", no it only told me what I already knew. Singularly absent was any detail that, for example, living systems were "low" entropy. They are clearly "ordered", but is this not the same exactly as opposite of "disordered" as it is defined in entropy. This is why I highly recommend the secondlaw.com site, which appears to be highly respected among scientists as I understand.
The main point is that biological systems don’t get limited by the second law to the extent that they are “open” systems with energy flow through them, and because of this they build order. But the issue of whether they are “low” entropy is quite different from this point. They are only “low” in the sense that if one put a lifeform in a completely isolated container (no heat, air, anything) it would quickly die and become more disordered in both visual/conceptual terms and in strictly thermodynamic terms entropy within the system boundary would increase. But because of the free flow of energy in and out of the living being, this does not happen. This is the entropy problem, (as noted by Micah’s quote) but it does not imply that organisms are “low entropy”. In side by side comparisons of biological organisms and other objects of similar size or mass, there is no particular reason to consider the biological organism to have less “entropy” -- except by “doing the calculation” in a case by case basis. In other words it is the dynamic aspects of life that are relevant, not the static state of being “low” that is relevant, and thus my disagreement with the definition.
Here is a quote from related site 2ndlaw.com:
quote:
Both are keys to life, to us as living organisms. Without the directional energy flow predicted by the second law – from more intense, concentrated, or having greater internal content to diffused, spread out, or lesser internal content, we wouldn’t have the possibility of obtaining energy from food molecules, storing it in our ATP or similar substances, and using it for our chosen purposes. Without activation energies (or, technically, without the molecular mechanisms responsible for the phenomena), NO chemical substance could be stable even for microseconds.
A second problem is the “inversely related” section, as it is only inversely related when considering an isolated system or a system with little energy/mass crossing the system boundary. The entropy increases when the available energy is converted to unavailable energy, and furthermore the unavailable energy stays within the system boundary.
I was thinking something along the lines, changes in bold:
“A quantitative measure of the disorder of a system and inversely related to the amount of energy available to do work in an isolated system. The more energy has become dispersed, the less work it can perform and the greater the entropy. Biological systems are highly organized, carry out numerous work cycles, and counteract increasing disorder because of energy flow through the biological system.”
Also excellent putting the link to Secondlaw.com on the definition of entropy!
Perhaps Eric or someone else with physics experience can comment.
[-- Added in edit:]
quote:
Genetic Information
The specific linear sequences of subunits in DNA and RNA molecules that are required to sustain the living state by specifying the sequences of amino acids in proteins. Genetic information is both complex and specified.
I thought that ISCID was not specific to promotion of ID. Here the claim is made that genetic information is “specified” and complex. These terms, taken together, suggest that the definition in the sentence is Dembski’s definitions of both specified and of complex. (And if they are not intended to be Dembski’s terms, what is the sentence doing here at all as it is not common terminology in science.)
Now this is a definition of “genetic information”, not an argument presented as a case for ID. As such, I don’t think that anyone has established that genetic information is “complex” according to Dembski’s definition (the only sensible one to have been meant in the sentence) because no one has shown in a way that is universally agreed to that genetic information is improbable at less than the UPB. (And that is what “complex” means when one is using Dembski’s terminology of “complex and specified”. So if ISCID is not going to be seen as promoting ID, then it should not make claims as part of definitions that are specific claims from ID that are not accepted by science.
[ 23. February 2003, 00:52: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 22. February 2003 11:29
Complexity Measures
For starters/examples, these references:
Reference 1
Reference 2
Reference 3
Reference 4
There are lots more, of course; the four above are examples of resources, not an exhaustive list.
RBH
[ 22. February 2003, 11:30: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 22. February 2003 13:40
1. Photoreactivation
2. Nucleotide excision repair
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 23. February 2003 14:19
Gedanken,
Regarding your questions about Genetic Information and further, ISCID's promotion of ID. Let me vouch for two facts that might help shed light on the situation:
1. Much of the information in the encyclopedia is for testing puposes only. Indeed, our hope is that entries will be expanded or completely revised. The short entries, in particular, are not representative of what we would like to see in an end product. We would like to see, at minimum, entries with 3-4 paragraphs, unless brief entries are warranted.
2. The encyclopedia is a community effort, and for that reason it is going to reflect on those who submit entries. It is therefore not representative of ISCID's position but of the community of volunteer participants. Much of the information that is currently in the database is volunteered information which has not been reviewed. As soon as we move into production, a periodic review will take place. At this point, we are using the volunteered data (see 1 above) for testing purposes. As soon as review begins, we will take more of the responsibility for the content.
Having said the above, let me also indicate that it is helpful to us when you do point out these problems. As this thread develops, my hope is to use the information that everyone provides to significantly improve the accuracy and completeness of many of the entries, while also making additions.
In light of this, I would be happy to completely replace the entry on genetic information with something that you write up, with the caveat that it be as objective as possible without committing the same error as exists in the current entry.
[Added in Edit]
Gedanken, let me also point out that Brig Klyce submitted an entry on panspermia, very much in the volunteer spirit of how we would like to see this encyclopedia develop. My point only being that the encyclopedia will take on the character/theme of those who submit (also see some of my entries on philosophy of mind, reflective of my primary academic interest):
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Panspermia
[ 23. February 2003, 14:28: Message edited by: Micah Sparacio ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic