|
Author
|
Topic: Design Inference Game II
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 03. February 2004 07:22
I believe that Dembski, Orgel and the rest are describing the same feature of life, albeit, from different vantage points, and Dembski would probably agree with me here. Dembski's simply trying to tie them all together with his definition.
quote:
It is CSI that for Manfred Eigen constitutes the great mystery of life's origin, and one he hopes we eventually to unravel in terms of algorithms and natural laws.............
It is CSI that within the Chaitin-Kolmogorov-Solomonoff theory of algorithmic information identifies the highly compressible, nonrandowm strings of digits.
quote:
The central problem of biology is therefore not simply the origin of information but the origin of complex specified information. Paul Davies emphasized this point in his recent book The Fifth Miracle where he summarizes the current state of origin-of-life research: "Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity." The problem of specified complexity has dogged origin-of-life research now for decades. Leslie Orgel recognized the problem in the early 1970s: " Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."
We may be at an impasse here because we are talking past each other, whatever you choose to call what all these people are describing is what I'm referring to as well known. It's that feature/quality of life, namely highly specified proteins, DNA, outboard motors and even living things in the first place to which I refer, call it what you will, that well known quality of numerous specified parts, I think the filter can be used on.....(whew).........Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
Matthew J. Brauer
Member
Member # 819
|
posted 03. February 2004 12:40
Cre8,
I think that Dembski himself has to take the blame for this confusion, since it was he who equated "complexity" with "low probability". Thus it is that a string of digits can exhibit CSI, even though there are no "complex parts" operating together. (Notice that on my "solar eclipses" thread, he had no problem in treating the phenomenon as a potential example of CSI.)
"Complexity" sensu CSI has no necessary connection with "complexity" sensu IC, AFAICT.
And the main problem I have with both notions is that they routinely resolve to "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it." This tendency makes both concepts completely subjective and hence scientifically useless.
If someone can come up with objective reasons why a phenomenon exhibits CSI or IC, that will be a start towards getting past this impasse.
IP: Logged
|
|
gregorythegrey
Member
Member # 1088
|
posted 03. February 2004 13:04
This post is far too polemical and filled with stereotype...not to mention advocacy. Deleted with warning.
[ 03. February 2004, 22:15: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 04. February 2004 08:48
Matt,
quote:
I think that Dembski himself has to take the blame for this confusion, since it was he who equated
"complexity" with "low probability". Thus it is that a string of digits can exhibit CSI, even though
there are no "complex parts" operating together. (Notice that on my "solar eclipses" thread, he had
no problem in treating the phenomenon as a potential example of CSI.)
I don't want to change the subject to IC, but a string of digits can exhibit IC similar to that which Behe defined, take web urls for example, there is a certain base amount of information which must be entered for each website that is visited. Reduce the string beyond this base and try to reach the site...you'll see what I mean. I think the same could be said for the code which specifies some proteins as well.
But as to your main point. The definition of complexity given by Dembski sets a standard in the form of the UPB. This is an improvement to me. Compare it to Pim's "gradations from low to high," for example. In Pim's world how many random polymers does it take (using Orgel again) to make complexity? Dembski could at least put some teeth into his number, I think Pim's assessment would be far more subjective, (not to pick on Pim).
Wrt solar eclipses and the like, there are many potential instances of CSI in the universe, not just on Earth. I'd like to get into some of them here in the future, but I'm going to let the original photos run their course before I bring in any examples. Unless they specifically come up..........Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
gregory the grey
Member
Member # 1101
|
posted 04. February 2004 09:19
You'll get your member name reinstated when your temporary ban is lifted. When people come to this discussion board and start tossing stereotypes around, and when the contents of a person's post don't serve to move the discussion forward, we don't hesitate to ban those people.
If you've got excuses/appeals and whatnot, please send them to moderator@iscid.org
The game that you've come to ISCID to play is not a game that we participate in. Last I recall, we've banned at least twice as many "creationists" as "non-creationists" so you can whine all you want about our "advocating" but such is not the case. Regarding your concerns of censorship/suppression, if that is what you'd like to call it, feel free. We think of it more as as attempt to "moderate" the discussion to fascillitate a higher standard of discussion. If you don't like this policy, then please go elsewhere.
Please do not post at our discussion board until you are ready to engage issues at a civil level, without recourse to the tools you've thus far tried bringing to the table.
Also, please do not discuss moderating issues on this board, but send all concerns to this address:
moderator[a@t]iscid.org
***********************************************
[The following message has been moderated and is not as the author originally posted it]
But I hope it may just be that I was too rigid and sharp with the last post and will try to tame such expressions in the future.
In the case of this thread, it is simply enough for me to opine that the EF by itself, whether or not it is enough to help individuals make a simple ‘design inference,’ will not effect a revolution. This appears, however, to be the sole purpose of claims to ‘eliminate chance through small probabilities’; i.e. The Design Revolution (2003) by William A. Dembski. Others are, of course, free to disagree and may claim ‘revolution’ until the sun goes down if they prefer. The Design Inference Game II does not necessarily have to suggest revolutionary implications, but what else do EF proponents expect when a person is (finally) willing or not to admit: ‘that looks like it’s designed’?
So please let me continue with straightforward, non-attackful questions. I would hope the Moderator would not suppress my views in the future unless they really have no relevance for studies in complexity, information and design.
1. Do Dembski’s EF discussions about complexity have meaning strictly in terms of mathematics, statistics and probability rather than in the social sciences? If those specializations acurately contain its theoretical purpose then perhaps Cre8ionist (or others) could help our understanding by stating the limitations of the EF; i.e. where does it not apply, so that the feedback for this thread/Game could be clearer.
2. "When should one distinguish between human-made things and non-human-made things (i.e. when it comes to a theory of intelligent design or Dembski’s EF)?"
Kind regards,
GtG
p.s. how do i get member #1088 re-instated?
[ 04. February 2004, 15:30: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 04. February 2004 12:53
Cre8: We may be at an impasse here because we are talking past each other, whatever you choose to call what all these people are describing is what I'm referring to as well known. It's that feature/quality of life, namely highly specified proteins, DNA, outboard motors and even living things in the first place to which I refer, call it what you will, that well known quality of numerous specified parts, I think the filter can be used on.....(whew).........Cre8
It think you have hit the nail here namely that people for various reasons seem to see various forms of complexity and specificity in nature and have come to a conclusion. I personally have no problems with people finding support for their faith in nature, I see beauty all the time in the world around us. But the issue here is more than a subjective intepretation, rather the issue is a claim that such design can be reliably detected mathematically or at least logically. Such claims need to be investigated based on clear definitions of terms lest we reach a fallacious conclusion.
In fact I would argue that highly specified proteins etc may very well be found to be evidence of design. But I also believe that the designer can be found to be explained by regularity and chance.
So my question to Cre8 is: Are we discussing these topics within a scientific paradigm or not? If it is the former then we should avoid unclarity as to definitions, especially when using logic/mathematical arguments.
As to the last picture, we have an interesting example of design which may or may not be intelligent. In fact one may argue that simple rules can lead to constructions such as beehives, termite hills etc, so claims of intelligence need to be made carefully. Simple rules lead to self organization.
quote:
Recent research has begun to reveal that even the most sophisticated structures that we will consider, such as the nests of termite colonies, are self-organized structures built through the iteration of surprisingly simple behaviors performed by large numbers of individuals that rely only on local information.
See also:
Bonabeau, Eric, Guy Theraulaz, Jean-Louis Deneubourg and Nigel R. Franks, Oliver Rafelsberger, joly-jean-louis, blanco-stephane. 1998. A model for the emergence of pillars, walls and royal chambers in termite nests. Philosophical-transactions-of-the-royal-society-of-london-b-biological-sciences. Oct. 29, 1998, 353 (1375) 1561-1576.
quote:
A simple model of the emergence of pillars in termite nests by deneubourg is modified to include several additional features that break the homogeneity of the original model: (i) a convection air stream that drives molecules of pheromone along a given direction, (ii) a net flux of individuals in a specific direction, (iii) a well-defined self-maintained pheromone trail, and (iv) a pheromonal template representing the effect of the presence of a queen that continuously emits pheromone. It is shown that, under certain conditions, pillars are transformed into walls or galleries or chambers, and that this transformation may not be driven by any change in the termites' behaviour. Because the same type of response at the individual level can generate different patterns under different conditions, and because previous construction modifies current building conditions, we hypothesize that nest complexity can result from the unfolding of a morphogenetic process that progressively generates a diversity of history-dependent structures.
or
Phase-Transition in a Swarm Algorithm for Self-Organized Construction by Henri Leung et al
quote:
This paper reports on a system where very simple, noncommunicating mobile agents in a cellular (lattice) environment use purely local rules to construct connected structures from initially randomly distributed building blocks. We study the effect of block density on the final structure, demonstrating a percolation like phasetransition: Low block densities lead to the formation of small, disconnected structures but a single connected structure emerges abruptly beyond a critical density. The empirical study of the structure at the transition point shows scaling behavior, providing strong evidence for criticality. We also demonstrate that a simple change of rules can completely change the phase-transition effect. The results have implications for the self-organized construction of complex structures by swarms.
And then this Dissertation in German
So depending on the extent of our knowledge we may infer intelligent design based on the specification and complexity of these structures or we may infer 'design' through application of simple rules. Is the latter one 'intelligent design'? If so what does this mean to emergence of complexity through simple rules?
[ 04. February 2004, 13:13: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
FRDiamond
Member
Member # 1072
|
posted 04. February 2004 14:08
Pim,
Amid the text of the articles to which you referred is an abundance of "teleological" language, for example, regarding the "rules of instances where "very simple, noncommunicating mobile agents in a cellular (lattice) environment use purely local rules to construct connected structures from initially randomly distributed building blocks."
Here is but one sample: (Please forgive the formatting, but this is a semi copy/paste from a pdf:)
"...The intuition behind the rules triggering and suppressing
pickup is the following. Figure 2 rules suppress pickup
when the current block could form part of a viable line.
However, the rules are sufficiently redundant that they
also suppress pickup in some situations that produce blob-like
structures. The pickup triggers in Figure 1 eliminate
these situations pre-emptively, since the pickup based on
Figure 1 is applied before suppression of pickup based on
Figure 2. The suppression rules in Figure 3 protect desir-able
junction formations. The pickup triggers in Figure 1
and pickup suppressors in Figure 3 are mutually exclu-sive,
so the junction configurations are not pre-empted by
Figure 1 rules. However, excess blocks around the junc-tion
are removed by Figure 1 pickups. The heuristic un-derlying
the selection of certain junctions is that each
junction should be the confluence of three branches (not |4 and the branches should be as well-separated as possi-ble
around the junction point. pickup is the following. Figure 2 rules suppress pickup
Figure 4: Map configurations indicating segment termi-nals.
The terminal block is picked up with probability ....
also suppress pickup in some situations that produce blob-like
structures. The pickup triggers in Figure 1 eliminate
these situations pre-emptively ...Essentially, an agent carrying
a block tries to locate a continuous line of blocks,
moves along it until it reaches the end and then deposits
its block....", etc.
With all the talk about what constitutes an objective "specification" with regard to design, it seems to me that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander regarding "self organization".
Cordially,
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 04. February 2004 23:03
quote:
So my question to Cre8 is: Are we discussing these topics within a scientific paradigm or not? If it is the former then we should avoid unclarity as to definitions, especially when using
logic/mathematical arguments.
Sure Pim, but I have to say if this language is good enough for Dembski in NFL, why shouldn't I use it here in the forum? Was your definition of complexity completely clear, or somehow superior to Dembski's? I don't see how. Again, and hopefully for the last time, I think they are all talking about basically the same thing. I showed that Dembski pretty much agrees. So do you agree that these numerous specified biological components are (depending on some basic ground rules) potentially good candidates for the filter or not?
Now to the picture, I like this one, it reminds me of a picture (below) from 1997 of paleontologist Stephen Hasiotis standing next to one of many similar rock formations:
After much scientific evaluation, the conclusion was made that these were not natural rock formations. They were now said to
have been designed by termites. Here is the reasoning the researchers gave for making their determination:
"The pillars, up to six feet in diameter, had previously been thought by some geologists to be fulgurites, glassy mixtures of sand
and rock fused together by lightning strikes. But the new analysis indicates the pillars contain intricate, interconnected galleries
and chambers nearly identical to the interior structures of some contemporary social termite nests."
They also said, " Simple and compound 'galleries,' or tunnels as large as Frisbees radiate out from the central nest chambers, he
said. There even is evidence of ancient fungal gardens in the nests that were as large as softballs. Fungal gardens found in
termite nests today are known to regulate nest heat and humidity."
Some basic design detection here. Still, nothing I could put through Dembski's filter, anyone else?....................Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 04. February 2004 23:42
FRDiamond: With all the talk about what constitutes an objective "specification" with regard to design, it seems to me that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander regarding "self organization".
In what sense? That 'teleological' language is used? That by itself is not surprising since emergence and much of biology can be argued to exhibit 'teleology' (see for instance Ruse or Ayala).
If simple rules can create specified complexity then we may have to reconsider what we call 'intelligence'. Random initial conditions, simple rules, increased complexity. Now where have I heard that before?
Cre8: Was your definition of complexity completely clear, or somehow superior to Dembski's?
That's not really the issue I believe. What is the issue is the confusion created by refering to usage of the term specified complex information when in fact the authors mean very different things. Thus while it may be argued that other authors than Dembski consider nature to exhibit CSI, it seems that when looking at the details their CSI is not Dembski's CSI.
Cre8: So do you agree that these numerous specified biological components are (depending on some basic ground rules) potentially good candidates for the filter or not?
Which definitions are you using here for specified?
Cre8: Some basic design detection here. Still, nothing I could put through Dembski's filter, anyone else?....................
Exactly my point, real design inference seems to not be based on the filter approach despite suggestions by Dembski to the contrary.
[ 04. February 2004, 23:46: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 05. February 2004 08:21
quote:
Cre8: Was your definition of complexity completely clear, or somehow superior to Dembski's?
That's not really the issue I believe. What is the issue is the confusion created by refering to usage of the term specified complex information when in fact the authors mean very different things. Thus while it may be argued that other authors than Dembski consider nature to exhibit CSI, it seems that when looking at the details their CSI is not Dembski's CSI.
Maybe it's not the issue, but it's an issue, and I just raised it in response to your call for clarity of definition.
quote:
Cre8: So do you agree that these numerous specified biological components are (depending on some basic ground rules) potentially good candidates for the filter or not?
Which definitions are you using here for specified?
Pim, we already agreed that Orgel and Dembski were using the same definition for specified (see earlier posts).
quote:
Cre8: Some basic design detection here. Still, nothing I could put through Dembski's filter,
anyone else?....................
Exactly my point, real design inference seems to not be based on the filter approach despite suggestions by Dembski to the contrary.
Pim,
Some design detection can be done by humans without needing to dig in to the details of the object/event, e.g., Mt. Rushmore. Some design detection can be done by digging into the details just below the surface of an object/event, e.g., the termite nests. However, some design detection will require a more advanced approach (noting here that for years I debated people as to whether design detection was even scientific at all, congrats to Dembski and others for moving us past that), enter William Dembski's filter. Protein, DNA, organelles, universal fine tuning, etc...seem to me to be prime candidates for the filter. Time will tell..............Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 06. February 2004 11:26
FRDiamond: Dembski has written that algorithms (or "simple" rules) are probabililty amplifiers, and cannot create CSI. I think that the notion of "emergence" and "self-organization" orginating via "simple" rules somehow arising from initial random conditions may perhaps be just another way of drawing the target around the arrow, among other reasons, because it is hard to see how initial random conditions could yield a "target" in the first place.
I am very aware of what Dembski has claimed but his claims suffer from some real mathematical and logical problems. Several people have addresses Dembski's problems. From Elsberry who showed that there may be apparant CSI and actual CSI to Perakh in his recent book.
And while initial random conditions may seem to not explain a 'target', the findings are that simple rules (such as perhaps natural selection) can generate emergent structures. Is this an example off painting the bullseye around the arrows? It might be if one were to apply a design inference and conclude intelligent design.
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 08. February 2004 10:35
Pim, while we're waiting for the next pic, I thought you might help me understand how to apply Del's thoughts on design detection to genes, proteins etc....? I'm going to order the book (Nature, design and science) either today or tommorrow.......................Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 08. February 2004 15:37
Cre8: Pim, while we're waiting for the next pic, I thought you might help me understand how to apply Del's thoughts on design detection to genes, proteins etc....?
Del's approach is quite different from Dembski's approach and Del, in his appendix has some strong criticism on various of the claims about the design inference filter. He points out among others that the design inference filter is unable to infer new design and that the "no false positives' claim also seems to be erroneous. Del provides for a nice example of a false positive.
In all fairness, Del does point out that Dembski's design inference set out to prove a very limited issue namely to show that in principle one could infer design using a logical approach.
A good place to start with Del is to read the discussion on ISCID (you will need to be a member for this) and the chat.
Perakh addresses Del's criticism
quote:
Another book, in which we find a more detailed and systematic criticism of Dembski’s work was published [7] by the professor of philosophy Del Ratzsch . The entirety of Ratzsch’s writing makes it clear that he himself belongs to the camp of “design theorists.” However, unlike most of his co-travelers, Ratzsch is usually logical and meticulous in his discourse. In an appendix to the mentioned book, Ratzsch subjects some parts of Dembski’s work to a strong critique. Ratzsch’s critical remarks relate almost exclusively to Dembski’s “explanatory filter.” In particular, Ratzsch convincingly illustrates the fallacy of Dembski’s assertion that his “filter” does not produce “false positives,” which is in itself sufficient to render the entire concept of that “filter” largely useless.
Del's other book also deserves a reading "Del Ratzsch (1996) The Battle of Beginnings. Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate."
Perakh again
quote:
This relentless logic is the foundation of Ratzsch’s impartiality and of his penetration into the real meaning of the arguments used by both sides in the “evolution vs. creation” dispute. In his book [11] Ratzsch offers a well substantiated analysis of the false arguments which are often the staple of the mutual attacks by the adherents of the two opposing views.
I have both books in my, by now quite extensive library.
Does anyone know if Dembski has addressed some of Del's very valid comments?
Del Ratzsch Science and Religion Subject of Staley Lectures at Erskine College Feb. 27- March 1
Del relies on a concept called counterflow to detect design/agent activity. Counterflow means that the observation indicates that there was a process involved which runs contrary to what would have resulted from regularity and chance processes.
Detecting counterflow is what can help a design(er) inference.
I am not convinced that detecting of 'counterflow' through complexity and interacting parts in nature can lead to a scientifically succesful identification of design, especially intelligent design. Identification of counterflow seems to be quite problematic since it seems to rely in elimination. It has been a while since I last read Del's book.
[ 08. February 2004, 16:01: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic