Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, September 06, 2007

David Kellogg, English professor, cannot differentiate between "new" and "originate"

The following is why I don't like dealing with ignorant anti-IDists.

David Kellog, an English professor at Northeastern U., cannot even differentiate between words like "new" and "originate".

CSI is all about origins.

With that in mind the following is what took place on Kellogg's blog:

David said:
New CSI requires intelligence.


To which I responded:

That's not in NFL either.

Don't worry. You just don't get it and probably never will.

David than demonstrates he cannot differentiate between the words "new" and "originate":

Holy shit, Joe, I know the book well enough to riff on it. Apparently better than you:

NFL, p. 161: "[O]rdinary experience also tells us that complex specified information originates from intelligence."

NFL, p. 163: "The Law of Conservation of Information is not saying that natural causes in tandem with intelligent causes cannot generate CSI but that natural causes apart from intelligent causes cannot generate CSI."

NFL, p. 164: "To explain an instance of CSI requires either a direct appeal to an intelligent agent who via a cognitive act originated the CSI in question, or locating an antecedent instance of CSI that contains at least as much CSI as we started with."

"Intelligent causes generate CSI whereas natural causes transmit preexisting CSI (and usually imperfectly)."

"With CSI the information problem never goes away short of locating the intelligence that originates the CSI."


This is funny because on page 162 my pont is made. That is funny because David starts quoting from page 161.

Ya see if one has pre-existing CSI and then random mutations (or other unintelligent processes) are allowed in, that pre-existing CSI could very well become "new" CSI- meaning it is different than the original and therefore "new".

This can be seen by taking an existing sentence:

"David Kellogg is an assistant professor at Northeastern."

Then say the page that it was written on gets torn by natural wear and tear.

The original sentence becomes:

"David Kellogg is an ass"

This seemingly new information was not generated from scratch, but generated by natural processes acting on pre-existing information.

The same scenario applies to biological organisms. For example those populations which have lost some biological feature present in their ancestors.

But I do not expect Kellogg or his minions to accept or understand this concept. That is why they are anti-IDists- they just refuse to understand what is being debated.

posted by Joe G @ 10:22 AM  

70 Comments:

  • At 1:59 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Joe,

    1) Do you understand that the study that hermagoras cited identifies genes that are responsible for photoreceptors, and that photoreceptors are part of the vision system?

    2) Do you really think that the evolution of the vision system was "caused" by a gene or a set of genes? Did these genes hang around for hundreds of thousands of years (at least), directing the mutations and reproductive selections that resulted in the vision system?

    3) Do you think that Meyer is referring to rearranged old CSI when he talks about "new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals"?

    4) Where did hermagoras misrepresent Dembski? Do you know what de novo means?

    5) Do you know what intimidation means? Do you really think that intimidation is the only possible reason for trying to debunk someone with a misrepresentation?

    6) Do you understand why your example of CSI in a computer, with the physical information being the hardware and the conceptual information being the software, flies in the face of Dembski's depiction of conceptual information (see Figure 3.1 in NFL)?

    7) Do you understand that CSI is defined only in terms of the mereological and stastistical aspects of information, and that neither CSI nor semantic information presupposes the other? Do you understand that "semantic" refers to meaning?

    8) Do you understand that Dembski's mathematical definition of complexity is strictly about probability, and says nothing about intricacy or "many parts or facets"?

    9) Are you able to demonstrate an iota of integrity and courage by taking accountability for your many claims that have been debunked in past conversations, and more recently here.

    10) Can you see the stark contrast between your unstable and desperate behavior and that of hermagoras? Do you understand that this is the difference between someone with class and someone without? (Of course, hermagoras' level-headedness can also be partially attributed to the fact that nobody takes you seriously, so we're more inclined to amusement than anger. Your bravado, intellectual and otherwise, invokes the same response as a 10-year-old trying to pick a fight with us.)

     

  • At 2:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1) Do you understand that the study that hermagoras cited identifies genes that are responsible for photoreceptors, and that photoreceptors are part of the vision system?

    Yes.

    2) Do you really think that the evolution of the vision system was "caused" by a gene or a set of genes? Did these genes hang around for hundreds of thousands of years (at least), directing the mutations and reproductive selections that resulted in the vision system?

    Those are questions evolutionists need to answer, not me.

    So have at it.

    3) Do you think that Meyer is referring to rearranged old CSI when he talks about "new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals"?

    How is that relevant to what Dembski states on page 162 of NFL?

    4) Where did hermagoras misrepresent Dembski? Do you know what de novo means?

    On his blog. And "from the beginning" or "starting anew"

    5) Do you know what intimidation means? Do you really think that intimidation is the only possible reason for trying to debunk someone with a misrepresentation?

    Yes I know what intimidation means. And no intimidation isn't the only possible reason but when one harps on the same misrepresentation for days, and then draws in other imbeciles, like yourself, clowny, Zachriel and doppledork, then the gang is intimidating the misrepresented individual.

    6) Do you understand why your example of CSI in a computer, with the physical information being the hardware and the conceptual information being the software, flies in the face of Dembski's depiction of conceptual information (see Figure 3.1 in NFL)?

    Fig 3.1 isn't about CSI. It is merely a reference class of possibilities.

    And no my explanation doesn't fly in the face of Dembski. If it did he would have told me.

    7) Do you understand that CSI is defined only in terms of the mereological and stastistical aspects of information, and that neither CSI nor semantic information presupposes the other? Do you understand that "semantic" refers to meaning?

    I covered this already. How it is defined is different than how one can explain it.

    8) Do you understand that Dembski's mathematical definition of complexity is strictly about probability, and says nothing about intricacy or "many parts or facets"?

    I explained that already also.

    Selective reading just exposes your agenda.

    9) Are you able to demonstrate an iota of integrity and courage by taking accountability for your many claims that have been debunked in past conversations, and more recently here.

    Are you?

    IOW can you tell me about the scientific methodolgy used that determined that living organisms and their subsequent evolution are solely due to stochastic processes?

    10) Can you see the stark contrast between your unstable and desperate behavior and that of hermagoras?

    Hermies behavior is unstable.

    Do you understand that this is the difference between someone with class and someone without?

    Umm you don't know anything about "class". Neither does Kellogg.

    Thanks for demonstrating your intellectual cowardice.

    You are truly secondclass.

     

  • At 2:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RotFLMAO!!!

    I just read your alleged refutation.

    Thanks for proving you are a mental midget.

    I will refute your post as time permits.

     

  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Page 8 of NFL:

    "Complexity ensures that the object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance."

    Then on page 9:

    "Complexity as I am describing it here is a form of probability."

    Again, as I have already stated, he does this to bring mathematics into the equation.

    IOW he is taking the normal definition and giving it a mathematical quality.

    That is it.

    That you choose to read more imto it than that says quite a bit about you.

    And I have already demonstrated that you do not know how to use the EF.

    I don't have to do it again.

     

  • At 2:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW, just how is the following a tautology?

    BTW CSI is necessary to differentiate between just specified information and specified information of a complex nature.

    I am not saying the same thing twice. I am just telling it like it is.

    One can have specified informtion that is not complex. And one can have CSI. There is a difference between the two.

    And you call me unstable!!

    I will know you are unstable if you, like all other anti-IDists, are afraid to answer the following:

    Can you tell me about the scientific methodolgy used that determined that living organisms and their subsequent evolution are solely due to stochastic processes?

    Do that and you may win a Nobel prize...

     

  • At 2:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I take it you didn't read (or didn't understand) the following from Meyer's site:

    "In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa."

    Got that:

    Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the ORIGIN of the information (caps added)

     

  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Do you understand that the study that hermagoras cited identifies genes that are responsible for photoreceptors, and that photoreceptors are part of the vision system?

    Yes.

    So genes responsible for part of the vision system have been identified. Thank you for that concession.


    Do you really think that the evolution of the vision system was "caused" by a gene or a set of genes? Did these genes hang around for hundreds of thousands of years (at least), directing the mutations and reproductive selections that resulted in the vision system?

    Those are questions evolutionists need to answer, not me.

    So have at it.

    If you insist. The answers are:

    1) Yes, you do think that, as demonstrated by this quote: "'Does anyone even know what gene or genes is responsible for the vision system?' RESPONSIBLE FOR. Are you that stupid that you don't understand the meaning of 'responsible for'? Taken in context it would have to deal with its evolution."

    2) No, genes don't hang around for hundreds of thousands of years directing mutation and selection.

    I hope these answers are helpful for you.

     

  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Joe: You have serious issues and need professional help.

    "New CSI" is NOT the same as the origin of CSI.

    So you think that Meyer needs professional help, since he also conflates "origin of CSI" with "new CSI". Duly noted.

     

  • At 3:12 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    BTW, just how is the following a tautology?

    BTW CSI is necessary to differentiate between just specified information and specified information of a complex nature.

    I'm happy to explain. A tautology is a claim that is necessarily true simply by virtue of its internal logic. For instance, "X is X" is a tautology, no matter what you substitute for X. Likewise, the following is tautological: "XYZ is necessary to differentiate between just YZ and YZ of an X nature."

    Do you understand now?

     

  • At 3:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you think that Meyer needs professional help, since he also conflates "origin of CSI" with "new CSI".

    He doesn't do that. You are just warped and demented.

    Again what part of the following don't you understand?

    Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the ORIGIN of the information

     

  • At 3:20 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Are you able to demonstrate an iota of integrity and courage by taking accountability for your many claims that have been debunked in past conversations, and more recently here.

    Are you?

    IOW can you tell me about the scientific methodolgy used that determined that living organisms and their subsequent evolution are solely due to stochastic processes?

    Where did I claim that?

    Tell you what. Let's each look for claims that the other has made that have been challenged, with no subsequent attempts to respond to the challenge. For each such claim found, the claimant has to go for a month without discussing ID on the internet. Deal?

     

  • At 3:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW CSI is necessary to differentiate between just specified information and specified information of a complex nature.

    Is not a tautology. It is an explanation as to why the "c" for "complexity" is required.

     

  • At 3:23 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    So you think that Meyer needs professional help, since he also conflates "origin of CSI" with "new CSI".

    He doesn't do that. You are just warped and demented.

    Then what does Meyer mean when he says "new CSI"?

     

  • At 3:25 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Is not a tautology. It is an explanation as to why the "c" for "complexity" is required.

    Do you think that explanations can't be tautological?

     

  • At 3:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So genes responsible for part of the vision system have been identified. Thank you for that concession.

    I never doubted that. You are an absolute idiot. Thanks again for the demonstration.

    The following is a further demonstration:

    Do you really think that the evolution of the vision system was "caused" by a gene or a set of genes? Did these genes hang around for hundreds of thousands of years (at least), directing the mutations and reproductive selections that resulted in the vision system?

    Those are questions evolutionists need to answer, not me.

    So have at it.

    IOW dickhead tell me what was responsible for the evolution of the vision system.

    Make sure your explanation contains supporting scientific data.

    A good start would be to explain cellular differentiation- how that "evolved". Then you would have to scientifically demonstrate that a population of single-celled organisms (ya know those with that light-sensitive spot) "evolved" into something other than single-celled organisms.

    That will earn you a Nobel prize.

    My point was and is no one can scientifically explan the evolution of the vision system.

    And you certainly can't do it using only culled genetic accidents as the mechanism- ie the Darwinian way.

     

  • At 3:38 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Fig 3.1 isn't about CSI. It is merely a reference class of possibilities.

    I didn't say that Fig 3.1 is about CSI. I was talking about your misunderstanding of conceptual information. Let's read it together:

    "Conceptual Information: Intelligent agent S identifies a pattern and thereby conceptually reduces the reference class of possibilities"

    The conceptual information in CSI is the specified pattern that the agent identifies. If you look at Fig 3.2, you'll see that the conceptual reduction is labeled T, and that it subsumes the physical reduction, which is labeled E. Dembski always uses T and E to refer to the specified pattern and the actual event, respectively.

    And Fig 3.2 shows what it means for conceptual and physical information to be coincident. As you can see from the diagram, E is a member or subset of T.

    Do you think that the hardware in a computer is a member or subset of the software?

    Also, do you think that a computer without software is devoid of conceptual information, and therefore devoid of CSI?

    And no my explanation doesn't fly in the face of Dembski. If it did he would have told me.

    Did you ever ask him?

    Tell you what. Let's ask him, and we'll raise the stakes. Whoever he says is wrong can never discuss ID on the interent again. What do you say?

     

  • At 3:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    2) No, genes don't hang around for hundreds of thousands of years directing mutation and selection.

    Can you verify that answer scientifically?

    Or is assertion the best you have?

     

  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Joe,

    I've been cowering in the corner here, hoping you don't drive over and throttle my fat, stupid ass (as part of your "intelligent reasoning" project) but I did want to comment on this.

    "New" clearly means "novel" as in "original," de novo, etc. The whole point of the front-loading fetish among ID folks is that all the information that's needed was there to begin with. That's why Dembski compares his law of the conservation of information with the 2LOT.

    As to Meyer, you say that he's not talking about new information, just the origin of information. But Meyer writes,

    "Therefore, the neo-Darwinian mechanism appears to be inadequate to generate the new information present in the novel genes and proteins that arise with the Cambrian animals."

    Or when Dembski writes,

    "In practice, there are only two options here: the information is created as an act of intelligence or it is the unintelligent (mechanical) outworking of preexisting information."

    The whole point of a sentence like this is to claim that information without intelligence is not really new. So the question of really new information and the question of information's origin amount to the same thing. Therefore I still maintain that, according to ID and NFL, new information requires intelligence.

    That was obvious to begin with, but you were more interested in demonstrating your manly capacity for insults, bluster, and -- finally -- the threat of a physical encounter than in reading what I wrote. Nice "intelligent reasoning."

    H

     

  • At 3:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do you think that explanations can't be tautological?

    It was only an explantion. So why are you making such a big deal out of it?

     

  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Then what does Meyer mean when he says "new CSI"?

    As the title of the paper and its subsequent contents make clear- Meyer is talking about ORIGINS of information.

    From the paper:

    "Does neo-Darwinism or any other purely materialistic model of morphogenesis account for the origin of the genetic and other forms of CSI necessary to produce novel organismal form?"

     

  • At 4:00 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Then what does Meyer mean when he says "new CSI"?

    As the title of the paper and its subsequent contents make clear- Meyer is talking about ORIGINS of information.

    So why did you say that Meyer doesn't conflate "origin of CSI" with "new CSI"?

     

  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I've been cowering in the corner here, hoping you don't drive over and throttle my fat, stupid ass (as part of your "intelligent reasoning" project) but I did want to comment on this.

    Who said anything about throttling your fat, stupid ass?

    I didn't even know you were married.

    "New" clearly means "novel" as in "original," de novo, etc.

    That is false.

    I take it you didn't understand my very simple explanation.

    Oh well.

    I see that you two can quote-mine. Too bad you can't understand what Meyer is actually talking about.

    It's also obvious that you both choose to equivocate rather than understand.

    It is also obvious that neither one of you will answer the following:

    Can you tell me about the scientific methodolgy used that determined that living organisms and their subsequent evolution are solely due to stochastic processes?

     

  • At 4:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NEW-

    For example an organism that lost some feature or features that were present in its ancestors exhibits something new, ie something never exhibited before.

    Rearranged CSI can also exhibit something that has never been exhibited before.

    It is the ORIGIN of CSI that is in question.

     

  • At 4:11 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Joe G said,

    "Who said anything about throttling your fat, stupid ass?

    I didn't even know you were married."

    Ah, more "intelligent reasoning" from Joe.

    This whole conversation has resulted from your threats: you have asserted that

    you know who I am,
    you know where I work,
    you are "being very generous by saying that [I am "a fat and stupid fuck"] on this blog as opposed to driving a few miles to say it to your face,"
    you "will not continue to stand for it" and "will do whatever it takes to stop it"

    Sounds like a threat to me.

     

  • At 4:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do you think that the hardware in a computer is a member or subset of the software?

    No. But the hardware is useless without the software. IOW it isn't a computer until the proper software is loaded.

    Also, do you think that a computer without software is devoid of conceptual information, and therefore devoid of CSI?

    Is it a computer without software?

    What computing can it do without its software?

    This could put Gates out of business...

     

  • At 4:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is very telling that when I try to explain something in simple terms that some anti-ID imbecile will then harp on that explanation.

    If they understood the technical explanation I wouldn't have to try to simplify it for them.

    But obviously they would rather argue semantics then to actually ante up by finding scientifc supprt for their anti-ID position.

    Yes sc it took conceptual information to bring the hardware together. Just as it took conceptual information to bring the software together.

    Again I was trying to use as simple of an explanation as possible because of who I was and am dealing with.

     

  • At 4:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So why did you say that Meyer doesn't conflate "origin of CSI" with "new CSI"?

    He doesn't.

    You obviously can't understand what he was saying. You obviously have an anti-ID agenda.

    And you obviously couldn't support your position if your life depended on it.

     

  • At 4:23 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    It is also obvious that neither one of you will answer the following:

    Can you tell me about the scientific methodolgy used that determined that living organisms and their subsequent evolution are solely due to stochastic processes?

    I'll answer it: No scientific methodology has determined that living organisms and their subsequent evolution are solely due to stochastic processes.

    But it's easily determined mathematically. If you had ever studied stochastic processes, you would realize that it's mathematically impossible for a process to NOT fall under the technical definition of stochastic processes. Every process, whether it's deterministic, indeterministic, or a combination, is technically a stochastic process. If you think I'm wrong, then describe for me a process that isn't stochastic.

     

  • At 4:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This whole conversation has resulted from your threats: you have asserted that

    I didn't make any threats.

    You just infer a threat because you are a guilty intellectual coward.

    Are you also threatened by natural selection?


    I take your abuse as a threat- your abuse of ID- your abuse of what I post- and your abuse of reason (well it could just be a lack of).

    Anyone who is abused has the right to defend themself.

     

  • At 4:46 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    So why did you say that Meyer doesn't conflate "origin of CSI" with "new CSI"?

    He doesn't.

    Make up your mind. When Meyer says "new CSI", does he mean the origin of CSI or not?

     

  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    IOW it isn't a computer until the proper software is loaded.

    I happen to have a machine under my desk right now with a blank hard drive. If I wanted to, I could also blank out the BIOS. And yet, I don't know of anyone (other than you) who would hesitate to refer to it as a computer. Would anyone say that a UTM with a blank program is not a UTM?

    It is very telling that when I try to explain something in simple terms that some anti-ID imbecile will then harp on that explanation.

    Here is your explanation:

    CSI can be understood as the convergence of physical information, for example the hardware of a computer and conceptual information, for example the software that allows the computer to perform a function, such as an operating system with application programs. In biology the physical information would be the components that make up an organism (arms, legs, body, head, internal organs and systems) as well as the organism itself. The conceptual information is what allows that organism to use its components and to be alive. After all a dead organism still has the same components. However it can no longer control them.

    This explanation if flat-out wrong.

    Let's do this... We'll send the above quote to Dembski without telling him who wrote it, and we'll ask him whether the anonymous author understands what conceptual information is, and what it means for conceptual and physical information to be coincident. Are you willing to bet on this Joe, with the stakes I mentioned before?

     

  • At 5:09 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Again, as I have already stated, he does this to bring mathematics into the equation.

    IOW he is taking the normal definition and giving it a mathematical quality.

    So according to the "normal" definition, CSI necessarily has intricacy and multiple parts, but according to the mathematical definition, it doesn't necessarily have intricacy and multiple parts. When definition is correct?

     

  • At 5:17 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    It was only an explantion. So why are you making such a big deal out of it?

    I didn't. I said exactly two words about it, and you took it from there.

     

  • At 5:30 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Do you understand that CSI is defined only in terms of the mereological and stastistical aspects of information, and that neither CSI nor semantic information presupposes the other? Do you understand that "semantic" refers to meaning?

    I covered this already. How it is defined is different than how one can explain it.

    If the definition says nothing about meaning, and Dembski specifically says that CSI does not presuppose semantic information, then saying that CSI necessarily has meaning is simply false.

     

  • At 5:52 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Yes, you're quite the abuse victim. Just defending yourself. Uh huh. No threats in broadcasting your opponent's name and location and asserting that you will do "whatever it takes" to shut him up.

    Like the guy Cheney shot in the face, I deeply apologize for getting in the way of your vitriol. As for what you post, it's already been pre-abused. Good day.

    I'll leave you to your important work

     

  • At 6:53 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    "No, genes don't hang around for hundreds of thousands of years directing mutation and selection."

    Can you verify that answer scientifically?

    Or is assertion the best you have?

    Well, you surprised me. I thought you would agree with the answer and swear that you never said otherwise. That you would actually challenge this statement is bizarre in the extreme.

     

  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "No, genes don't hang around for hundreds of thousands of years directing mutation and selection."

    Can you verify that answer scientifically?

    Or is assertion the best you have?

    Well, you surprised me. I thought you would agree with the answer and swear that you never said otherwise. That you would actually challenge this statement is bizarre in the extreme.

    I will never accept a bald assertion.

    Have you ever read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetener?

    In it he proposes the "non-random evolutionary hypothesis". This hypothesis is about "built-in responses to environmental cues".

    And that seems to be in line with what you stated about genes hanging around directing mutations and in effect acting as an artificial selector.

     

  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So why did you say that Meyer doesn't conflate "origin of CSI" with "new CSI"?

    He doesn't.

    Make up your mind. When Meyer says "new CSI", does he mean the origin of CSI or not?

    Why are you asking me what Meyer means?

    That is just a tad juvenille.

    Again new information is just information that has not been exhibited before.

    Meyer, Dembski and ID are only concerned with the ORIGIN of CSI.

    IOW all you are doing is out-of-context quote mining.

    But I do understand that is the best you can muster.

    Thanks for the demonstration.

     

  • At 9:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can you tell me about the scientific methodolgy used that determined that living organisms and their subsequent evolution are solely due to stochastic processes?

    I'll answer it: No scientific methodology has determined that living organisms and their subsequent evolution are solely due to stochastic processes.

    Thanks for the admission.

    But it's easily determined mathematically.

    What is determined mathematically?

    There isn't anything in the theory of evolution or abiogenesis that lends itself to mathematics- that is in the anti-ID position.

    It is all sheer dumb luck.

    If you had ever studied stochastic processes, you would realize that it's mathematically impossible for a process to NOT fall under the technical definition of stochastic processes.

    An intelligently designed process would not fall under the definition of stochastic processes.

    If it did than why would Dembski, Meyer, et al. say that intelligent processes can generate CSI (from scratch) but stochastic processes cannot?

    Every process, whether it's deterministic, indeterministic, or a combination, is technically a stochastic process. If you think I'm wrong, then describe for me a process that isn't stochastic.


    This is from Wikipedia- which is a devote anti-ID construct:

    "A stochastic process, or sometimes random process, is the counterpart of a deterministic process (or deterministic system) considered in probability theory."

    Well looks like you totally blew that one...

     

  • At 9:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW. I just searched the Meyer paper for "new CSI".

    The only place I found it was in the following:

    "One way to estimate the amount of new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals is to count the number of new cell types that emerged with them (Valentine 1995:91-93)."

    IOW you ARE a freak.

    I also found the following in the same paper- just above the quote I just provided:

    "Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well."

    Geez pretty much what I stated- the exception being I used "meaning" and Meyer uses "functional biological information"- ie information that means something.

     

  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IOW it isn't a computer until the proper software is loaded.

    I happen to have a machine under my desk right now with a blank hard drive. If I wanted to, I could also blank out the BIOS. And yet, I don't know of anyone (other than you) who would hesitate to refer to it as a computer.

    Can it compute anything? If it cannot then it is not a computer.

    That is a fact.

     

  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Let's do this... We'll send the above quote to Dembski without telling him who wrote it, and we'll ask him whether the anonymous author understands what conceptual information is, and what it means for conceptual and physical information to be coincident.

    I'll take Meyer's word for it:

    "Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well."


    Did you get that?:

    to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information

    Do you still want to bet?

     

  • At 9:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, you're quite the abuse victim.

    That is how I percieve it. And I am not alone.

    Just defending yourself. Uh huh.

    Exactly. I do reserve that right.

    No threats in broadcasting your opponent's name and location and asserting that you will do "whatever it takes" to shut him up.

    Yes when someone is abusing me it is well within my rights to do whatever it takes to stop it.

     

  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oops I messed up the link to Wikipedia:

    Wikipedia on stochastic processes:

    A stochastic process, or sometimes random process, is the counterpart of a deterministic process (or deterministic system) considered in probability theory.

     

  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To the out=of-context quote miners- secondclass and Kellogg-

    Meyer's conclusion plainly spelss it out:

    "An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa.

     

  • At 2:37 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Well looks like you totally blew that one...

    In that case, I'm in good company.

    Bill Dembski: Indeed, any deterministic process, nondeterministic process, or mix of the two, insofar as these can be captured mathematically at all, are captured by stochastic processes. Have a look, for instance, at the two volumes on stochastic processes by Karlin and Taylor.

     

  • At 2:44 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    If it did than why would Dembski, Meyer, et al. say that intelligent processes can generate CSI (from scratch) but stochastic processes cannot?

    Now you're starting to get it. You've just discovered a very big reason that Dembski's paradigm makes no sense.

     

  • At 2:59 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    I see that you two can quote-mine. Too bad you can't understand what Meyer is actually talking about.

    You're missing the whole point. We understand what Meyer means by "new CSI". He means the same thing as everyone else you find when you google "new csi" dembski. You're the only one who insists that "new CSI" means something different.

     

  • At 3:01 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Do you still want to bet?

    Absolutely. I'm just waiting for you to say yes.

     

  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I see that you two can quote-mine. Too bad you can't understand what Meyer is actually talking about.

    You're missing the whole point. We understand what Meyer means by "new CSI".

    No, YOU are missing the whole point.

    Meyer makes it clear what he is referring to.

    YOU conflate what Meyer said.

    Meyer made it clear that he was talking about the ORIGIN of information.

    And in that context- something you ignore- new could mean origin.

    However it is very obvious that "new" can mean "something that has never been exhibited before."

    IOW Kellogg FAILED to provide the context.

    And in doing so he was soundly refuted.

     

  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well looks like you totally blew that one...

    In that case, I'm in good company.

    Doubtful:

    Page 150 of NFL:

    "Natural processes are properly represented by nondeterministic functions (stochastic processes)."

    IOW given your track record you are quote-mining out-of-context.

     

  • At 3:29 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    YOU conflate what Meyer said.

    Conflated it with what?

    And how did we misunderstand what Meyer said?

     

  • At 3:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If the definition says nothing about meaning, and Dembski specifically says that CSI does not presuppose semantic information, then saying that CSI necessarily has meaning is simply false.

    You obviously cannot think for yourself. And you obviously cannot understand what I have posted.

    It is true you cannot DEFINE CSI by including "meaning" because the meaning is not the same in all cases of CSI.

    IOW you cannot presuppose the semantic content. Duh.

    I take it you still don't understand what Meyer said:

    "Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well."

    Do you think you could provide an example of CSI that didn't have any meaning?

    I doubt it.

     

  • At 3:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If it did than why would Dembski, Meyer, et al. say that intelligent processes can generate CSI (from scratch) but stochastic processes cannot?

    Now you're starting to get it.

    No, you don't get it. It's like your head is stuck so far up your rectum that you can't see because you have shit in your eyes.


    You've just discovered a very big reason that Dembski's paradigm makes no sense.

    The anti-ID position doesn't make any sense. And you have already admitted it isn't based on scientific methodology.

     

  • At 3:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW I would love to bet you but I can only wager with honest people.

    As for:

    Let's each look for claims that the other has made that have been challenged, with no subsequent attempts to respond to the challenge.

    You don't make any claims- none pertaining to the anti-ID position.

    IOW you are an intellectual coward- that is all you can do is sit back and hurl stones at other people's ideas.

    What would be cool is to find how many of my challenges to evolutionists remain open- ie never accepted or accepted but failed to respond with anything of scientific merit.

     

  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Page 150 of NFL:

    "Natural processes are properly represented by nondeterministic functions (stochastic processes)."

    Do you think that natural processes can't be deterministic?

    When I have access to my copy of NFL, I provide more quotes.

    IOW given your track record you are quote-mining out-of-context.

    Really? Here's the page with the quote. Show me how I took it out of context.

     

  • At 3:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I just want to say something about the following:

    "CSI can be understood as the convergence of physical information, for example the hardware of a computer and conceptual information, for example the software that allows the computer to perform a function, such as an operating system with application programs. In biology the physical information would be the components that make up an organism (arms, legs, body, head, internal organs and systems) as well as the organism itself. The conceptual information is what allows that organism to use its components and to be alive. After all a dead organism still has the same components. However it can no longer control them."

    This was part of an opening in a debate about ID. I sent the paper to Phil Johnson ("Darwin on Trial" fame). He liked it so much he put it on his listserve (or some listserve).

    I seriously doubt he would have done that if I was wrong. Afterall I did ask him to correct anything that wasn't correct. All he did was tell me "good job" and said thanks.

    And seeing that you cannot even understand a simple process like the EF, I doubt you understand CSI.

    Also getting you not to post has no value to me. IOW once Dembski confirms I am correct I won't really "win" anything (if we did bet).

     

  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Natural processes are properly represented by nondeterministic functions (stochastic processes)."

    Do you think that natural processes can't be deterministic?

    Stop trying to change the subject.

    Context is also a good thing to keep in mind. Oops you don't care about context- my bad.

    YOU conflate what Meyer said.

    Conflated it with what?

    With what you wanted it to say and mean.

    And how did we misunderstand what Meyer said?

    You haven't given any indication you understand it. Meyer's context is about the ORIGIN of CSI.

    Dembski's context is about the ORIGIN of CSI.

    ID's context is about the ORIGIN of CSI (page 92 of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education"):

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    IOW if Kellogg had a clue about ID then he would have stated "ORIGIN" as opposed to "New".

    "Origin" is clear while "new" can be something that wasn't exhibited before.

     

  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK, let's look at what Dembski stated:

    "Stochastic processes (which I am using interchangeably with stochastic mechanisms) constitute a very general mathematical object and subsume computational processes. Indeed, any deterministic process, nondeterministic process, or mix of the two, insofar as these can be captured mathematically at all, are captured by stochastic processes. Have a look, for instance, at the two volumes on stochastic processes by Karlin and Taylor."

    Yes they can be CAPTURED by stochastic processes. He explains in NFL that "by zeroing out the randomizing componentw, stochastic processes can also model deterministic natural laws and therefore necessity"- page 158.

    But I don't expect you to understand that either.

     

  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NFL- top of page 150:

    "...and stochastic processes (representing nondeterminstic natural laws and therefore the combination of chance and necessity)."

     

  • At 10:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I take it you need more time to do your out-of-context quote-mining search.

    Take your time...

     

  • At 12:53 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    This was part of an opening in a debate about ID. I sent the paper to Phil Johnson ("Darwin on Trial" fame). He liked it so much he put it on his listserve (or some listserve).

    I seriously doubt he would have done that if I was wrong. Afterall I did ask him to correct anything that wasn't correct. All he did was tell me "good job" and said thanks.

    This bet should be an easy win for you, then.

    Also getting you not to post has no value to me. IOW once Dembski confirms I am correct I won't really "win" anything (if we did bet).

    Okay, then what do you want the stakes to be? As this is a bet that you're sure to win, I'm sure you'll want to bet something really big.

    And as a separate wager, let's ask Dembski whether deterministic processes fall under the category of stochastic processes. What would you like the stakes for that one to be?

     

  • At 1:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So I take it you can't find anymore out-of-context quotes to mine.

    LoL!

    I take it you don't understand what he states on page 158 of NFL.

    Typical.

    Ya see secondclass- no matter what the wager you will never pay up.

    The only way this could happen is if we met with a third party who would then secure (hold) whatever we bet.

    Page 150- again:

    "These three ways of characterizing natural causes are represented mathematically by nonstochastic functions (representing deterministic natural laws and therefore necessity),..."

    To me, betting with imbeciles is not a fruitful endeavor.

    And betting with anonymous imbeciles is just not worth my time.

     

  • At 1:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I also wanted to address the following nonsense:

    1) Do you understand that the study that hermagoras cited identifies genes that are responsible for photoreceptors, and that photoreceptors are part of the vision system?

    The article discusses genes that are EXPRESSED in rods. That does not make them responsible for rods.

    The abstract:

    "To identify the full set of genes expressed by mammalian rods, we conducted serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) by using libraries generated from mature and developing mouse retina. We identified 264 uncharacterized genes that were specific to or highly enriched in rods. Nearly half of all cloned human retinal disease genes are selectively expressed in rod photoreceptors. In silico mapping of the human orthologs of genes identified in our screen revealed that 86 map within intervals containing uncloned retinal disease genes, representing 37 different loci. We expect these data will allow identification of many disease genes, and that this approach may be useful for cloning genes involved in classes of disease where cell type-specific expression of disease genes is observed."

    You do realize that rods are cells that have a nucleus that contains the organism's DNA and therefore all the genes.

    It is just that in rods, the genes discussed, are expressed- meaning a mutation to tamper with that and therefore lead to some disease.

     

  • At 2:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oops- a mutation COULD tamper with that...

     

  • At 4:11 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Ya see secondclass- no matter what the wager you will never pay up.

    In which case, you would report my welching to the ID and anti-ID communities, which would be pretty embarrassing for me.

    My point in proposing the bets is for us to show that we stand behind our claims enough to put something at risk. Otherwise, we're all talk, and this discussion isn't worth our while. Talk is cheap.

    Besides, since you're obviously going to win both bets, you have nothing to lose, right? So I don't understand your reluctance to accept the bets.

     

  • At 9:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ya see secondclass- no matter what the wager you will never pay up.

    In which case, you would report my welching to the ID and anti-ID communities, which would be pretty embarrassing for me.

    Your gaff in your opening comment in this post should be embarrassment enough.

    And you have already admitted the anti-ID position isn't based on scientific methodology.

    That should provide more than enough embarrassment to the anti-ID side.

    My point in proposing the bets is for us to show that we stand behind our claims enough to put something at risk.

    Your point is to try to bluff your way out of your embarrassment.

    And your only "claim" is to say "is not".

    IOW you really haven't made a claim.

    Otherwise, we're all talk, and this discussion isn't worth our while. Talk is cheap.

    You're talk is worthless. I have provided more than enough to substantiate my claims.

    You just refuse to accept that fact.

    Besides, since you're obviously going to win both bets, you have nothing to lose, right? So I don't understand your reluctance to accept the bets.

    I explained my reluctance. That you can't even understand my simple explanation is very telling.

     

  • At 9:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh, and thanks for proving that you cannot think "outside of the box".

    You have proven that with the EF- as if it only requires one question at each node- that is just stupid- and now with CSI.

    CSI is not limited to Dembski. Someone has to be able to simplify it for those who cannot grasp the technical aspect- you for example.

    However even the simplified explanation is lost on you.

    And this is what I get for trying to help people like you.

    Unbelievable.

     

  • At 11:36 PM, Blogger R0b said…

    Well, Joe, the proposed wagers stand. If you ever decide to take me up on them, you can let me know in a comment at any of the high profile sites, ie Uncommon Descent, Pandas Thumb, etc. Until then, best wishes to you and your blog.

     

  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And everything I said still stands.

    Until you make a claim there cannot be any wager.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home