Intelligent Reasoning: CSI for Dummies

Monday, August 27, 2007

CSI for Dummies

CSI for Dummies

CSI stands for Complex Specified Information

Complex meaning it is not simple. Complex meaning it is intricate. And complex because it contains many parts or facets.

(Wm. Dembski takes that meaning and gives it a mathematical form. He does so, because like Galileo before him, he sees science as incomplete without the mathematics. You put something in mathematical form and then someone else can check it. But dummies can't understand this and that is why I created this post)

Specified meaning something is indicated or defined, in detail. A good set of assembly instructions specifies what part goes where and as well as the order to put them together.

Information meaning it is communicated data.

IOW complex specified information is a term to differentiate between Shannon Information and information that has a specific meaning.

Shannon information does not care about content or meaning, ie it does not care about specification. All the weight goes to the number of characters transmitted..

34 Comments:

At 7:41 PM, Hermagoras said…

Aww, how sweet. Yet another definition of CSI, this one adding the notion of "meaning" to the mix.
At 9:58 AM, Joe G said…

Wow such stupidty, How cute.

I didn't provide another definition of CSI.

I just provided the definition of each word as it pertains to CSI. (you do realize that one word can have several meanings. Did I need to define "meaning" also? I didn't think you were that simple-minded)

This needed to be done because simple-minded folk, like Hermagoras and blipey, could not do so for themselves and instead chose to disparage the term "complex specified information".

IOW I simplified CSI for the simple-minded anti-ID mob.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The sad part is they most likely still won't get it.

Sad but true...
At 10:46 AM, Joe G said…

What's really sad is Hermagoras claims to be an "English Prof.".

Yet H is apparently unaware of the word "parse".

The point being when given a new term or a term one doesn't understand one shoud break it down to its individual parts/ components.

That is all I did to glean the meaning of CSI. I broke it down and defined each word.

Then you connect the definitions to get the simplified meaning of the term.

Perhaps "English Prof." means he is English, not that he teachers it.
At 10:54 AM, Hermagoras said…

Providing a definition of each word is not the same as defining a key term. My students sometimes cite the dictionary in their papers: this is almost always a mistake, especially if (as with CSI) the term claims to mean something specific to a discipline. (A good place to understand the difference between words and terms is the chapter "Coming to Terms" in the philosopher Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book.)

Is the addition of "meaning" equivalent to Dembski's distinction between "physical" and "conceptual" information? How come that only occurs in some definitions of CSI?
At 11:05 AM, Hermagoras said…

Let me also point out that the definition you have provided is fuzzy, and not amenable to scientific testing. "Complex" is apparently a sliding scale, and if "specified" refers to meaning, then the amount of CSI it depends on the target of communication (whether the recipient can understand English, for example). Defined thus, CSI cannot be measured empirically.
At 12:02 PM, Joe G said…

Providing a definition of each word is not the same as defining a key term.

True, you have to string those definitions together. And by doing so even a simple-minded person should be able to grasp the meaning of the term.

Is the addition of "meaning" equivalent to Dembski's distinction between "physical" and "conceptual" information?

Another prediction fulfilled. Thanks.

No, English Prof., my usage of "meaning" is equivalent to "what is meant by a word".

Let me also point out that the definition you have provided is fuzzy, and not amenable to scientific testing.

Again this is for simple-minded folk who couldn't conduct science if their lives depended on it- for instance you and blipey.

The technical definition, provided by Wm. Dembski, is amendable to scientific testing. (see the OP)

Perhaps you should stick with teaching English and the technical stuff to the people who can understand it.

There's also a reason that blipey is a clown...

But anyways,

Have you figured out how it was determined that living organisms (and the diversity of) are the result nature, operating freely, ie stochastic (blind watchmaker-type) processes?
At 12:07 PM, Joe G said…

Ya see, English Prof., before one can even attempt to "empirically measure" something, one must have a grasp (at least a basic grasp- meaning understanding) of what it is one is attempting to measure.

The point being is that I visualize you and blipey running for the tape-measure when asked to measure CSI.
At 12:42 PM, Hermagoras said…

Can you write without insults?

"Such stupidity."
"simple-minded." (Repeated endlessly)
"claims to be an English prof."
"Perhaps you should stick with teaching English and the technical stuff to the people who can understand it."
"I visualize you and blipey running for the tape-measure when asked to measure CSI."

I haven't insulted you either here or at pro-science. I've pointed out that the definitions of CSI vary (some including meaning, some without it, some quantitative, some not, etc.). You respond with childish name-calling.
At 1:37 PM, Joe G said…

Can you write without insults?

I was doing quite well until YOU told me to STFU on your blog.

Once the wall is breached I take no prisoners and you breached that wall. STFU indeed.

Now I am calling them as I see them.

And yes, definitions of CSI do vary but the over-all premise remains the same.

That variance is required so that a broad audience can understand the point being made.
At 1:58 PM, Hermagoras said…

Re: "STFU." I was referring to ID proponents generally and their constant griping about materialism. I haven't seen you do this, and in fact was contrasting your apparent support for a materialist ID with the anti-materialism of virtually everybody else in ID. Seems to me that you would be on my side at least in that regard.
At 4:57 PM, Joe G said…

I was referring to ID proponents generally and their constant griping about materialism.

And I still don't believe you understand what the gripe is or what it refers to.

The "materialism" that IDists "gripe" about is that all that is observed is reducible to matter.

IOW everything we observe can be explained by stochastic processes.

The Discovery Institute claims:

Far from attacking science (as has been claimed), we are instead attacking scientific materialism- the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone."

See also Materialism.

Now you know.

And know this also-I am anti-materialism (given the above definitions).
At 5:06 PM, Joe G said…

"Such stupidity."

Look what I was responding to! Read your first post and think of it in light of what I have posted (about my use of the word "meaning").

"simple-minded." (Repeated endlessly)

The title of the post is "CSI for Dummies". Simple-minded is just a synonym.

"claims to be an English prof."

I got that from your profile. I don't know you and anyone can make up whatever they want. IOW I cannot verofy your profile so to me it is just a claim.

Yes just like my claim to be able to fix things.

"Perhaps you should stick with teaching English and the technical stuff to the people who can understand it."

As Dirty Harry said "A man has to know his limitations."

Heck I am sure there are many things you can do that I cannot. Everyone has ther own little niche or niches.

"I visualize you and blipey running for the tape-measure when asked to measure CSI."

I do, honestly. But that is from personal experience with clowns and English teachers.

They are (usually) good at what they do but sometimes they need to understand their limitations.
At 6:44 PM, CJYman said…

If it is shannon information, not algorithmically compressible, and can be processed by an information processor into a separate functional system, then it is complex specified information.

"this is for the benefit of hermagoras"

The above sequence of letters is shannon information, is not algorithmically compressible, and can be processed by a human information processor into a functional (meaningful) sentence.

The above quote is complex specified information and, including spaces, weighs in at a whopping 85 bits (binary digits).
At 8:40 PM, Joe G said…

Ummm CSI has a lower limit of 500 bits- page 156 of "No Free Lunch".

How many bits are each of your letters and spaces?

ASCII

Put a string of 40 random characters together and you would have more "Shannon" information that CJYman's sequence.

NOTE:
Put a string of 500+ random characters together and you wouldn't have CSI.
At 10:10 PM, CJYman said…

Hello Joe,

ASCII is a set (alphabet) used to represent 128 units (possibilities). As such, 7 bits are needed to represent each unit individually.

Whenever I write something in order to communicate to someone else, I only need to use the set of our english alphabet which has only 26 units (possibilities) plus maybe and extra unit or two for spaces and punctuation. Altogether, though, 5 bits per unit will cover all sets (alphabets) containing 17 - 32 units.

And, so far I'm only covering the concept of CSI without introducing probabilities (where the probability bound comes in to play). The basic concept of CSI, as you have basically explained is a functional string (able to be processed by an information processor into a separate system) of shannon information which is algorithmically incompressible.
At 10:58 PM, Joe G said…

My problem is I think in terms of my profession so much so that perhaps no matter what I will always see characters in ASCII. I can't help it especially using a computer.

Therefore when someone says "Shannon information and binary digits" I hear digitized transmitted data, which I then interpret to be ascii strings in a data packet.

(Must be from reading too many data i/o downloads when the checksum didn't match.)

But anyway-

So with what you just described each character would be 5 bits?

"this is for the benefit of hermagoras"
At 9:12 AM, CJYman said…

BINGO! -- 5 bits of shannon information :)

Which brings in another little nugget of information. Measuring CSI cannot be based on ANY amount of ignorance.

We must be analyzing a long string of information, or many strings of information, in order to know the full alphabet upon which it is based.

Or, we can just observe an information processing system converting information into its function and be confident that we are dealing with CSI.
At 12:47 PM, Joe G said…

OK, what am I missing?

"this is for the benefit of hermagoras"

The above quote is complex specified information and, including spaces, weighs in at a whopping 85 bits (binary digits).

So with what you just described each character would be 5 bits?

BINGO! -- 5 bits of shannon information

"this is for the benefit of hermagoras"

Never-mind- you just forgot the 1- your sentence is 185 bits, not 85.

But after thinking about it isn't it best to use a standardized code, like ascii? That way all characters can be included in the message. And that way the receiver doesn't have to figure out which format the sender is using.

But anyway...
At 2:16 PM, Hermagoras said…

Joe, you write:

"complex specified information is a term to differentiate between Shannon Information and information that has a specific meaning."
But in No Free Lunch Dembski writes:
"To define CSI requires only the mereological and statistical aspects of information. No syntax or theory of meaning is required. . . . In particular, the intelligent agent need not assign a meaning to the pattern.
Is this a weakness of CSI? Not at all. Counterintuitive as it may seem, semantics, far from helping to detect design, can actually hinder its detection . . . Semantics information and complex specified information are distinct categories of information. Indeed, to require that semantic information be made explicit before one can infer design is artifically to restrict the design inference . . . . That is not to say that semantic content is necessarily laccking from CSI. But it is not required." (page 147, link and emphasis added.

The term semantic refers to meaning. I linked to the Wikipedia entry for your convenience.

Anyway. Whether or not Dembski's defintions of CSI square with each other, your reliance on meaning is completely at odds with what Dembski has to say about the subject in No Free Lunch.
At 10:00 AM, Joe G said…

Nice quote-mine. It's really telling that you would post that.

Thanks agin for demonstrating you choose to misunderstand CSI (and what Dembski wrote) as opposed to opening your mind and letting a new concept in.

Hermagoras is referring to the top of page 147 in NFL.

To define CSI we only need mereological and statistical aspects.

That does not mean that semantic, ie meaning, is not present.

This is beacuse we may not know the meaning. IOW if you included the meaning in CSI definitioon then you couldn't determine CSI was present without knowing the meaning.

Note what Dembski goes on to say in the last paragraph of 3.6 on page 147:

"This in my view is a tremendous asset of CSI, for it allows one to detect design without necessarily determining function, purpose or meaning of a thing designed (which is not to say that function, purpose or meaning of a thing may not be useful in identyifying specification, but they are not mandated)."

CJYman said it better than I:

If it is shannon information, not algorithmically compressible, and can be processed by an information processor into a separate functional system, then it is complex specified information.

In order for CSI to be processed it has to have meaning to the processor.
At 1:52 PM, Joe G said…

Again I should remind the readers that this thread is titled CSI for Dummies, ie for people who cannot understand Dembski's technical definition.
At 1:01 PM, Hermagoras said…

Joe,

Just FYI, because I can't comment at UD: Comprehensive Set Of Vision Genes Discovered: Identification Could Help In Diagnosing And Treating Blinding Diseases. This article (six years old) begins, "Harvard Medical School researchers have discovered nearly all the genes responsible for vision, which could help in diagnosing and treating blinding diseases."

Just FYI, because you wrote: "Does anyone even know what gene or genes is responsible for the vision system? No."

The full text of the original research (from November 30 2001 Cell) is here.
At 8:27 AM, Joe G said…

Thanks hermagoras for demonstrating your stupidity.

The genes responsible for vision are not the same as the genes that are responsible for the vision system.

I asked:
"Does anyone even know what gene or genes is responsible for the vision system? No."

And hermagoras provides the data which demonstrates we know what genes aid us in seeing, ie vision.

These are only the same to people who are totally clue-less.

We do not know what gene or genes give humans a human eyeball as opposed to a chimp eyeball.

We don't know.

As for the paper:

"Our goal was to find the genes expressed exclusively, or nearly so, in rod photoreceptors in an efficient manner."

Is hermagoras really this stupid or is he just dishonest?
At 8:07 PM, Hermagoras said…

Joe's main tactic is to deny the plain meaning of a text, or to run after a reasonable interpretation and claim it's not what he meant. See here and subsequent comments for a refutation of an idiotic statement Joe made about Dembski's No Free Lunch, which not only contradicts Dembski, but contradicts Joe's own blog!

We're waiting.
At 9:29 AM, Joe G said…

David Kellogg's only tactic is to misinterpret what I said into something he wanted me to say.

This is a typical tactic when one is shown to be mistaken- that is to say that one's interpretation is better than what the actual author states what was meant by a particular phrase.

You are a sad fuck David and it is a shame that you are allowed to teach at Northeastern.

Not only are you a sad fuck but you also appear to be a fat fuck.

Try diet and excercise...
At 9:36 AM, Hermagoras said…

That's your response? To say "I know who you are, and you're fat too?"
At 9:59 AM, Hermagoras said…

Joe,

As to intention: writers often intend to say one thing and end up saying something else. I would wager that a random sample of educated people would take your statement --

"Does anyone even know what gene or genes is responsible for the vision system? No."

-- to be contradicted by the report of the discovery (in 2001) of "nearly all the genes responsible for vision."

But I'll take you at your word that that's not, in fact, what you meant: that in fact, you meant that nobody had "even" discovered every gene for every element of the visual system including every part of its origin. In that case, your writing should be more clear. Most people reading that sentence would say it should be a cakewalk, whereas you were apparently saying that nobody "even" had perfect, absolute, comprehensive knowledge of an entire biological system and its history.

Okaaay. I'm not going to call you a liar. I'm even going to identify that case as "resolved" on my blog. But it's resolved with an asterisk. It's not resolved because your intended meaning was at all clear. It's only resolved because I accept your intended meaning, as now stated, at face value and must, therefore, override the obvious meaning of the text.

See how generous I am?

Meanwhile, could you clarify what you meant when you said (at my blog) that the claim that new CSI requires intelligence is "not in NFL"? I responded by quoting various passages from NFL which claim that new CSI does indeed require intelligence. I then quoted a passage from the index identifying intelligence as the "only known source of CSI." I then quote
from your own blog, where you write that "CSI only comes from an intelligent source."

So, again, I say: in NFL particularly and in ID theory generally, "new CSI requires intelligence." Do you still stand by your statement that "That's not in NFL either"?
At 10:18 AM, Hermagoras said…

I responded on my blog as follows:

". . . you know where to find me and have proudly displayed my name and institution like a hunting trophy. Hmm. How should I take this? You know who I am, but I don't know who you are. You have identified me by name and institution on your blog. This may give you a feeling of power over me.

Should I feel physically or otherwise threatened, Joe? Are you going to show up at my door? You say you're in New England; perhaps you're just around the corner. What possible reason other than intimidation could you have for pointing out that you know my name and institution?

Also, we both agree that I'm fat. That contributes to the argument how exactly?"
At 10:21 AM, Joe G said…

David,

You're quoting Science Daily. And what Science Daily says is not in the actual scientific paper.

And again- if my meaning is not clear to someone that person shopuld ask.

See you're not generous. You were caught misinterpreting what I said into something you wanted me to say so you could raise a fuss about it.

As for "new" CSI- well that is NOT the same as the ORIGIN of CSI.

See page 162 of NFL.

New CSI can arise be rearranging existing CSI.

IOW David, you are a fat and stupid fuck.

And I am being very generous by saying that on this blog as opposed to driving a few miles to say it to your face.
At 10:48 AM, Joe G said…

David,

I do not take kindly to being misrepresented.

YOU are the one coming after me with misrepresentations and nonsense.

I will not continue to stand for it.

And yes I will do whatever it takes to stop it.

The choice is yours.
At 12:14 PM, Joe G said…

Science Daily stated:

Boston, MA Harvard Medical School researchers have discovered nearly all the genes responsible for vision, which could help in diagnosing and treating blinding diseases.

I posted:

"Does anyone even know what gene or genes is responsible for the vision system? No."

And as I already stated that which is responsible for "vision" does not make them responsible for the "vision system".

Only a complete imbecile would conflate the two.
At 12:21 PM, Joe G said…

Hey David,

What possible reason other than intimidation could you have for misrepresenting what I post and then claim that I did not mean what I said I meant and then attack me with your nonsense?

What possible reason other than intimidation could you have for misrepresenting what Demski says in NFL and then using that misrepresentation to attack me?
At 12:29 PM, Hermagoras said…

Intimidation? I don't even know who you are. Someone posted what they claimed to be your name and hometown on my blog, but like a decent person, I took it off.
At 2:06 PM, Joe G said…

Umm you don't have to know me to try to intimidate me.

Also you can leave my name an alleged address up on your blog.

I don't care. It would be like a fly inviting a spider to dinner.

Anyone I don't know that comes to my door will be treated accordingly.

And I would welcome the opportunity to defend my actions in a court of law.

Intelligent Reasoning

Monday, August 27, 2007

CSI for Dummies

34 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts