|
Author
|
Topic: Nature reports on Intelligent Design, University Research Ideas
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 20. May 2005 00:07
quote:
No. I'm still confused. How did the initial random string (physical information) become conceptual information? As I understand, it was your intention to re-use it that brought about the change.
That is exactly right. A designer can create his blueprints for a design in any way he chooses. Conceptual information is a blue print. In this case, Christine's random role yeilded physical information. That physical information, by my choice, became a blue print (conceptual information) for Case B.
The main thing I want you to see is that there is nothing inherent in the numbers themselves that make the numbers CSI, it is the CONTEXT that makes them CSI. That is exactly why phone numbers are CSI.
Now, when one has a blue print in hand, like a printed blue print, where numbers are written, then it's easy to decide if one has conceptual information. When there are no explicit blueprints, the conceptual information is more difficult, but not impossible to infer.
quote:
Sorry to be dense about this, but I am finding the exchange useful.
No problem. Just to help you further with a simple exercise, give me a 16 digit number where each number is 1,2,3,4,5 or 6.
For example, here is one such number.
1 1 1 3 1 3 5 6 2 6 4 3 3 3 3 3
Give me a 16 digit number that you make up, and I'll illustrate something for you to help enlighten you some more. Ok?
Salvador
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 20. May 2005 12:50
quote:
The main thing I want you to see is that there is nothing inherent in the numbers themselves that make the numbers CSI, it is the CONTEXT that makes them CSI. That is exactly why phone numbers are CSI.
Now, when one has a blue print in hand, like a printed blue print, where numbers are written, then it's easy to decide if one has conceptual information. When there are no explicit blueprints, the conceptual information is more difficult, but not impossible to infer.
I understand that, but the problem I am now having is the one I stated in the previous post. In attempting to infer design, it will usually be the case that the conceptual information is not available to the investigator. Where, for example, is the conceptual information in a flagellum? Or, to go back to your trick question, how would anyone who had not participated in the discussion be able to determine that your string was CSI?
Here are my numbers, by the way...
1351115211253135
[ 20. May 2005, 13:10: Message edited by: andyg ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 20. May 2005 14:05
quote:
Where, for example, is the conceptual information in a flagellum? Or, to go back to your trick question, how would anyone who had not participated in the discussion be able to determine that your string was CSI?
That's actually a legitimate question, and I sympathize with your view.
With respect to the flagellum, I am agnostic for the most part that it can really be formally analyzed. I thus slightly break ranks with most IDist on the flagellum, but I believe in time the problems can be remedied.
However, there are actually other systems that allow us to circumvent the problems you highlight. If you'll be a little patient, I'll get to that in a subsequent post.
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 20. May 2005 14:23
I'm all ears...... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 20. May 2005 15:53
Hi Andy,
This exercise will help me communicate my ideas better, and hopefully answer some of your questions.....
I have on my desk 2 sets of dice, each set is 16 dice long. It is a fact the dice are man made, so the issue of design in that respect is beyond doubt.
However, what I'm interested in is with repsect to the configuration of the dice, do you see evidence of willful deliberate design with respect to the configuration.
I will post the numbers the dice are indicating:
code:
A. 1351 1152 1125 3125
B. 3535 3535 3535 3535
The above information is the "physical information" of interest in the dice.
Answer the following for A:
1. strongly suspect design
2. somewhat suspect design
3. can't tell
Answer the following for B:
1. strongly suspect design
2. somewhat suspect design
3. can't tell
[ 20. May 2005, 15:53: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 20. May 2005 17:18
quote:
It is a fact the dice are man made, so the issue of design in that respect is beyond doubt.
Yes, but this is a trivial objection, in a similar way that people object to computer simulations of evolution (e.g. Avida) because the computer and the software are themselves designed.
I have several answers to you questions.
A: Harking back to your trick question, the sequence is designed, because you took my sequence and deliberately repeated it, for reasons which will no doubt become clear in your next post. I would call this one step up from trivial design.
A: The string is also designed in the trivial sense that I know it was designed, because I designed it myself.
A is also the first few prime numbers expressed in mod6 form.
B is designed in a trival sense because you chose to arrange the dice that way to illustrate a point that you will soon reveal.
B also conforms to a simple pattern.
Where are we going with this?
[ 20. May 2005, 17:19: Message edited by: andyg ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 20. May 2005 18:21
quote:
A: Harking back to your trick question, the sequence is designed, because you took my sequence and deliberately repeated it, for reasons which will no doubt become clear in your next post. I would call this one step up from trivial design.
Trivial designs are important, because they make design detection easier. You provided a blueprint (the conceptual information) which I copied and it generated physical information. The coincidence of the two sets of information is represented by:
1351 1152 1125 3125
And thus in this context, for the reasons I highlighted,
1351 1152 1125 3125
is CSI. The other reasons you gave, actually play no consideration in why this is CSI.
quote:
B is designed in a trival sense because you chose to arrange the dice that way to illustrate a point that you will soon reveal.
B also conforms to a simple pattern.
But how do you know that? Seriously, this is the crux of detecting design when you have no blueprint ahead of time. How do you know from a scientific standpoint that just because B conforms to a simple pattern it is designed. That simple pattern is just as improbable as any other. What makes it special?
I don't mean to be harping on this, but once you realize that you can detect design in things you have no blue print for, and more importantly why you are able to, the the concept of CSI becomes clear.
quote:
Where are we going with this?
I'm going to try to answer the interesting question of how to detect design without explicit blue prints. You just demonstrated you can indeed detect design with no blueprint in hand. How did you do that? That's amazing.
The answer is more subtle than one thinks. Translating our intuitions into a rigorous scientific procedure is what design detection is all about.
But are you beginning to believe you can detect designs in objects which you've never seen before?
[ 20. May 2005, 18:38: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 20. May 2005 18:50
quote:
But how do you know that. Seriously, this is the crux of detecting design when you have no blueprint ahead of time. How do you know from a scientific standpoint that just because B conforms to a simple pattern it is designed. That simple pattern is just as improable as any other. What makes it special?
The reason I know it is designed is a trivial reason. I know that you made the string up. I did not say I thought it was designed for any other reason. All I said in my second answer to B was that it displayed a simple pattern. That does not imply design, as snowflakes and salt crystals also disply simple patterns.
quote:
You just demonstrated you can indeed detect design with no blueprint in hand. How did you do that? That's amazing.
Absolutely not true. The blueprint I had was that you were assembling the pattern. That's a trivial reason to infer design.
So far we have established that;
1. One can detect design in your Trick Question if and only if one was following the thread.
2. One can detect design in a telephone number if and only if one is familiar with telephone numbers.
3. One can detect design in a trivial sense if one is aware that the artifacts are being designed by someone else.
quote:
But are you beginning to believe you can detect designs in objects which you've never seen before?
Not in any meaningful way, only in trivial ways. We can detect patterns without knowing whether the pattern was designed. We can infer design where the artifact resembles things that humans design. At the moment, your method seems contingent on the observer's current knowledge - in other words the critique of Elsberry and Wilkins (among others).
But please continue. I'm still listening. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 20. May 2005 19:09
quote:
The reason I know it is designed is a trivial reason. I know that you made the string up.
How do you know that (unless I told you). I could have made a random roll and gotten that string. How do you know it wasn't a random roll?
You aren't giving any scientific answers, only your intuitions.
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 20. May 2005 19:14
quote:
All I said in my second answer to B was that it displayed a simple pattern.
I don't believe that is accurate, what you said was:
quote:
B is designed in a trival sense because you chose to arrange the dice that way to illustrate a point that you will soon reveal.
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 20. May 2005 19:40
quote:
How do you know that (unless I told you). I could have made a random roll and gotten that string. How do you know it wasn't a random roll?
It could have been a random series of rolls. The reason I know it wasn't is because I knew you were sitting at your desk creating the problem to make a (sadly still obscure) pedagogical point. That's all.
By the way, my full answer to string B was:
quote:
B is designed in a trival sense because you chose to arrange the dice that way to illustrate a point that you will soon reveal.
B also conforms to a simple pattern.
So I guess my actual answer would be 1 in a trivial sense, and 3 in a scientific sense. B could have been generated by (for the sake of argument) the output from two pulsars - a simple repeating pattern. You seem to be jumping back and forth between things that are complex and things that are simple. The repeating string is not complex specified information. It is simple information. I'm not clear how it is relevant to CSI.
[ 20. May 2005, 19:53: Message edited by: andyg ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 21. May 2005 08:53
quote:
Andy wrote:
The repeating string is not complex specified information. It is simple information. I'm not clear how it is relevant to CSI.
I appreciate that you may perceive things that way.
Unfortunately that is a mis-conception that has grown on the internet discussion boards. A repeating string in terms of Kolmogorov Complexity has low information but in terms of Probabilistic Complexity, if the string is improbable, the string has high information content. This graph illustrates the relationships of the various complexities, that implies also, there are various kinds of information.
I offer the following Venn Diagram to illustrate the concepts of complexity.
One of the difficulties is that most people associate complexity with Kolmogorov-complexity (a news paper article has high Kolmogorov-complexity). However, the most easily understood Specified Complex Objects are Kolmogorov-simple. And yet the most promoted objects for ID are Kolmogorov-Complex, Specified Complex, and Irreducibly Complex. ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
The "All Coins Heads" falls in to the region of non-IC, SC, and Kolmogorov-Simple. The bacterial flagellum falls into the IC circle that overlaps Kolmogorov-complex. Have I thoroughly confused you all? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I point this out to show that the relationships are not straight forward. I hope the following diagram helps clarify my viewpoint:
SC = Specified Complex
IC = Irreducibly Complex
[ 21. May 2005, 09:12: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 21. May 2005 09:54
quote:
The deal is only the beginning of the exercise. What needs to be factored in is not just the presence of a given card, but the probability that said card will win a trick. (It's more involved than this, but we can start here for the moment.)
So, how do we get a handle on this?
I think that bridge is like spades and 4 people play. Therefore, the odds you will receive the winning hand is 1 in 4 as you have the same odds as everyone else does.
Can you see this cannot be compared to CSI?
IP: Logged
|
|
Art
Member
Member # 179
|
posted 21. May 2005 10:12
quote:
I think that bridge is like spades and 4 people play. Therefore, the odds you will receive the winning hand is 1 in 4 as you have the same odds as everyone else does.
Can you see this cannot be compared to CSI?
Once again, Jerry, it's the amount of specified information that is important. Whether it's complex or not comes later.
The metric of importance in bridge is not "a winning hand", but rather the prospect that a given hand can make a contract. (It's more complicated than this - defeating contracts comes into play; but for now we can try and keep a modicum of simplicity.) The odds vary tremendously from hand to hand - not everyone at the table is equal in this regard.
Finally, reiterating another point - this example has excellent parallels with biology, so much so that, IMO, the position that bridge cannot be studied or analyzed from a Dembskian perspective is tantamount to stating that biology is likewise not amenable to analysis in the CSI context.
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 23. May 2005 10:33
quote:
Finally, reiterating another point - this example has excellent parallels with biology, so much so that, IMO, the position that bridge cannot be studied or analyzed from a Dembskian perspective is tantamount to stating that biology is likewise not amenable to analysis in the CSI context.
If one is modelling biology as replete with Turning Machines, Feed back controls systems, error correction, distributed information processing, digital to analog conversion, or any other engineering specificaiton, one is already invoking analysis amenable to CSI.
Bridge, in addition to being a boring example of informatic systems, seems highly irrelevant. I appreciate your suggestion Art, but it strikes me as unhelpful to helping students even understand what the concept of CSI even is.
If you feel CSI is a concept that is not amenable to biology, then, well, I'll tell the students to listen to your thesis that bridge illustrates how CSI can't be applied to biology. I don't think however, it will be a convincing case, but in the interest of fairness, I might pass on you ideas.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic