Thought Provoker's big questions!!!!
In the last thread Dave, the Thought Provoker posted the following:
Wow as far back as 2006!
Couldn't he find the answer himself?
But anyway as I told Dave yes non-living thing can have information content, yes a simple roch contains information- Shannon information and therefor two rocks would contain more Shannon info than just the one.
Was that answer enough for TP?
Nope.
His true reasoning come out later in that thread:
TP just wants to muddy the waters until no one can see what is there.
Ya see TP in order for anyone to make a determination that person would need to examine the scene.
Only a dolt would ask for an investigation into a hypothetical scenario in which no real investigation can take place.
While we wait for Oleg to comment, would you be so kind as to answer my questions I have asked you multiple times as far back as 2006?
I am interested in having Joe expound on his term "information content". Can non-living things have "information content"? For example, does a simple rock contain information (e.g. weight, mass, dimensions, etc)? If that is the case, do two rocks contain more information than one rock (not necessarily double, just more)?
Wow as far back as 2006!
Couldn't he find the answer himself?
But anyway as I told Dave yes non-living thing can have information content, yes a simple roch contains information- Shannon information and therefor two rocks would contain more Shannon info than just the one.
Was that answer enough for TP?
Nope.
His true reasoning come out later in that thread:
if a baseball sized rock is sitting on your couch next to a broken window, would the rock's "information connect" then be specified?
How about if there were two baseball-sized rocks (and two broken windows)? Would that be more specified information?
TP just wants to muddy the waters until no one can see what is there.
Ya see TP in order for anyone to make a determination that person would need to examine the scene.
Only a dolt would ask for an investigation into a hypothetical scenario in which no real investigation can take place.
posted by Joe G @ 7:41 AM
36 Comments:
At 2:28 PM,
John said…
Can you clear the waters for us?
You say confidently that a rock contains information, without relying on any knowledge of where the rock is, etc.
You also say it is necessary to examine the scene in order to determine whether the information content of a particular rock is specified information or not.
Can you give an example of what might be discovered at the scene that would make the information of the rock specified, and what would make it not specified?
At 2:29 PM,
Touchstone said…
Aren't we talking about the application of abstract principles, here, Joe? If I asked you, hypothetically, how many children would be at a party if there were just three mothers attending the party and they each brought along four children, would you venture a guess?
That would be a hypothetical situation with no real opportunity for investigation -- I just made it up? Would I be a dolt for asking you how many kids there would be attending the party? Maybe you're saying you'd be a dolt for trying to calculate the answer?
These are such obvious evasions, Joe, on your part. A hypothetical is advanced simply as a way to elicit the principles and algorithms you bring to bear on a given situation. You don't need to physically recreate the scene, rocks and all. Given the parameters of the hypothetical, you have everything you need to apply your principle.
I'll do the math for the party hypothetical I just gave, just by way of illustration. Given three (3) mothers in attendance, each bring (4) children, and no other indication of other children attending the party, I would calculate that there would be twelve (12) children at that party, based on the principle of multiplication:
3 x 4 = 12.
There. I don't need to have a real party with those parameters to provide you an answer. And I can do this with Shannon information over a wire, and I can do this with Kolmogorov complexity in calculating the program to reproduce a given output in a lossless way. Those are much more complicated hypotheticals, but they no more need "real rocks" than you do.
Here's a question that I think might tease out what's really going on, here. If you were told that such a real scene *was* available to you (TP's rock which was ostenisbly thrown through a window, now broken, nearby), just down the street at the end of the block, what would you need to measure or look for to determine if "specified information" was present, and in what amounts?
If you can give us your "recipe" for gathering the inputs for such a calculation or judgment, that will show us the substance of "specified information", at least according to you.
By the way, "Shannon information" is a communications concept -- conceptually and physically related to "physical information", but expressed in terms of "over the wire" decreases in uncertainty. A rock represents physical information, just as anything physical does -- 'physical' is just a synonym for 'has information'.
As a nitpick - you would need to provide some specifics regarding the rocks in question, to determine if two rocks had more information than one? An exhaustive description of *two* rocks (small ones) may require less resources than an exhaustive description of one (large) rock, right?
-Touchstone
At 3:35 PM,
Joe G said…
You say confidently that a rock contains information, without relying on any knowledge of where the rock is, etc.
Things that exist in the physical world contain, at a minimum, Shannon information.
You also say it is necessary to examine the scene in order to determine whether the information content of a particular rock is specified information or not.
I think TP's term was "information connect":
if a baseball sized rock is sitting on your couch next to a broken window, would the rock's "information connect" then be specified?
I am not sure if he was trying to trap me or that was a typo of some kind.
As I said "muddy the waters".
Can you give an example of what might be discovered at the scene that would make the information of the rock specified, and what would make it not specified?
The presence or absence of work and/ or counterflow.
But anyway going back to what TP said:
if a baseball sized rock is sitting on your couch next to a broken window, would the rock's "information connect" then be specified?
To see if the rock is "connect"ed in any way I would have to view the scene.
And if it is "connect"ed can it be specified as the offending missle?
Then has it left its life of leisure as a simple rock, just laying around, by force of nature or agency?
At 3:41 PM,
Joe G said…
If I asked you, hypothetically, how many children would be at a party if there were just three mothers attending the party and they each brought along four children, would you venture a guess?
You are going to hypothetically ask me or the scenario was hypothetical?
That's not really an example of an INVESTIGATION is it?
What am I investigating, exactly?
At 4:34 PM,
John said…
I was assuming "connect" was a typo for content.
At 4:51 PM,
Touchstone said…
Joe,
Reasoning is very much an important part of investigation. If we want to investigate the real world, it's a big advantage to have some conceptual and mathematical tools in place to help make sense of what we observe. I guess you could say that without an analytical foundation, it doesn't do you or anyone else much good to bother observing anything.
Bringing this back to "specified information" or ID, this question becomes acute: without a coherent analytical foundation, it's hard to see what difference it makes even taking stock of what's around. The virtuous cycle in science is observe => test => analyze => observe => test=> analyze...
Kolmogorov complexity is a good example that shows the vacuousness of ID. Now, K-Complexity is much more humble -- it doesn't suppose it's plumbing the depths of metaphysics or "cosmic questions". But in terms of analytics, it's very strong. It's got formal semantics and objective mechanisms: you can sit down and try to write a program that reproduces a given output exactly yourself, and if the program executes and reproduces the output, the program and its runtime are a measure of K-Complexity in the string you are trying to reproduce. Depending on your programming skill, you can come arbitrary close to maximal economy in producing such a program, thereby approximating the actual K-Complexity of the string, in quantifiable numbers.
That's an analytical tool that makes "investigation" in the real world productive, effective in building real knowledge.
So, at the heart of this, the chorus of critics here and at UD, suspect that ID is analytically vapid, and doesn't have formal semantics and objective mechanics that make investigation fruitful on the questions ID addresses. Thinking this, we call for substantiation. Dembski's proven to be a big blowhard on this himself, which I think does not bode well for the rest of the movement. Mike Gene, who seems to be quite a smart person, instead moves the conversation to a "consilience" or "matrix" model for induction. That's fine, but it's a tacit (or in Gene's case, not-so-tacit) admission that ID just is talking through its hat when it talks about CSI as a practical, effective analytical tool -- er, FCSI I guess is the newest phenotype in the evolution of ID polemics.
Anyway, ThoughtProvoker's question doesn't demand any emprical observations to be answered; it's a request for you to describe your *analytics* on the question of "specified information". If you give me a question about two strings and wonder if the two combined have more Kolmogorov complexity than just (either) one, I can answer you fully, without even knowing the strings, and can work up examples, and do the programming/math for you with those examples, showing how I got my answer, and why it is correct.
That's the kind of thing ID critics are looking for from ID proponents, but are ever denied.
-TS
At 5:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Touchstone,
What could be more vapid than saying "it evolved" without even knowing if it could?
Is an accumulation of genetic accidents an example of a good analytical tool?
It is the vacuous nature of your position that has allowed ID back into the discussion.
Yours is a non-fruitful heuristic if there ever was one.
Anyway, ThoughtProvoker's question doesn't demand any emprical observations to be answered;
I say it does and for the reasons provided in my reply to "Mynamehere".
it's a request for you to describe your *analytics* on the question of "specified information".
It has to do with the presence or absence of work and/ or counterflow- just as I said to "Mynamehere".
But anyway could you describe the "analytic" on the question of "accumulated genetic accidents"?
At 5:13 PM,
Joe G said…
I was assuming "connect" was a typo for content.
I am unwilling to make such an assumption.
But that's just me, speaking from experience.
At 6:09 PM,
Michael Graves said…
What could be more vapid than saying "it evolved" without even knowing if it could?
As a certainty, saying "it evolved" would be unjustified, especially without some evidential support for basic mechanisms. But saying "it evolved" as the hypothesis that best explains what we observe, even though the mechanisms are largely unknown, that's good reasoning. Especially if the mechanisms imagined remained unknown but plausible -- gradual, step-wise processes, for example.
Is an accumulation of genetic accidents an example of a good analytical tool?
No, I think that would be an observation, or more accurately, a conclusion drawn on a whole slew of misconceptions about biology and evolution.
It is the vacuous nature of your position that has allowed ID back into the discussion.
ID has always been here, and the Design Inference will never go away, no matter what evidence is presented. People still believe the earth is 6,000 years old for cryin' out loud, and in mass numbers. ID is an intuition and a desire, and intuition and desire are powerful enemies of reason.
Yours is a non-fruitful heuristic if there ever was one.
Which heuristic is it that's not fruitful? The scientific method? Maybe you meant Kolomogorov complexity?
"Anyway, ThoughtProvoker's question doesn't demand any emprical observations to be answered;"
I say it does and for the reasons provided in my reply to "Mynamehere".
Hmm. I can't make out what you said there, it's all bogged down in your confusion over "connect", which seems quite clearly to be a typo for "content". Maybe you can briefly restate why you would need to examine a real scene, rather than consider hypothetical parameters again? We trying to extract your algorithm here, so it seems a hypothetical is sufficient. But maybe you can tell me why that's not the case.
it's a request for you to describe your *analytics* on the question of "specified information".
It has to do with the presence or absence of work and/ or counterflow- just as I said to "Mynamehere".
Ok, that sounds like so much hand waving. But I'll take what I can get. How do you determine the presence of "work" and/or "counterflow" as it pertains to "information content" of the rock?
But anyway could you describe the "analytic" on the question of "accumulated genetic accidents"?
Sure, both Shannon Info and Kolmogorov-Chaitin are tools we can apply to genetic configurations, and derive objective quantifications of the information and complexity represented in that material, either for an individual or a population. Using Shannon entropy calculations, we can definitively and quantitatively establish the effects of genetic changes and reproduction in terms of information.
Do point mutations or frameshift errors create new information? With the use of Shannon analytics, we don't have to guess, or look in sacred texts, we can analyze the bits, and calculate the entropy before, and the entropy after, as hard numbers. We can then say, to folks whose intuition informs them that "evolution can't create information", that their definitionof information is like an informal, and casual one, and that in formal terms, information can be demonstrated to increase in those cases -- here's the math, etc.
-Touchstone
At 6:59 PM,
Joe G said…
As a certainty, saying "it evolved" would be unjustified, especially without some evidential support for basic mechanisms.
It's unjustified especially without evidential support for its possibility.
But saying "it evolved" as the hypothesis that best explains what we observe, even though the mechanisms are largely unknown, that's good reasoning.
By whose accounting?
Saying something evolved without knowing whether or not it is even possible is not good reasoning.
Especially if the mechanisms imagined remained unknown but plausible -- gradual, step-wise processes, for example.
But that is the point- the plausibility is unknown.
What is the plausibility that the transcription-translation process can evolve from a "population" that never had it?- For example a "population" of simple replicators?
Is an accumulation of genetic accidents an example of a good analytical tool?
No, I think that would be an observation, or more accurately, a conclusion drawn on a whole slew of misconceptions about biology and evolution.
1- Mutations accumulate via many mechanisms. That is the driving force behind variation.
If they didn't accumulate then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
2- Mutations are genetic accidents. If they were planned then that would be ID.
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus page 10.
Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells.
Mutations are considered mistakes- errors that have gotten through.
So what exactly were the misconceptions about biology and evolution?
ID has always been here, and the Design Inference will never go away, no matter what evidence is presented.
Bullshit.
That is just a cop-out for having to ante up and substantiate your position.
Once it is shown that nature, operating freely can account for what we observe then ID goes away.
ID is an intuition and a desire, and intuition and desire are powerful enemies of reason.
Desire and intuition are part of science- a big part of science.
And who says that desire and intuition are enemies of reason?
Any sort of "proof" for that statement?
I can't make out what you said there, it's all bogged down in your confusion over "connect", which seems quite clearly to be a typo for "content".
It is quite a leap to get a typo connect to content.
However the rest is OK. If you can't make it out then so be it.
You lack the analytical skills to even be having this discussion.
How do you determine the presence of "work" and/or "counterflow" as it pertains to "information content" of the rock?
As I have said earlier artist to art- the information flows from artist to art.
We can then say, to folks whose intuition informs them that "evolution can't create information", that their definitionof information is like an informal, and casual one, and that in formal terms, information can be demonstrated to increase in those cases -- here's the math, etc.
1- They do NOT say that "evolution can't create information".
They do say that unguided processes cannot create complex specified information or cause it to increase.
And in biology that amounts to biological function.
So to refute them all you would have to do is go out and find those accumulating genetic accidents leading past/ through/ over Dr Behe's "Edge of Evolution"- which BTW appears to have been confirmed.
And they also say that it is YOUR use of "information" that is useless- and give you the reasoning, etc.
At 7:14 PM,
Joe G said…
ScienceWeek:
Related Material:
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY: ON EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS
The following points are made by Guenter P. Wagner (Current Biology 2003 13:R958):
1) All life on Earth owes its existence to genetic accidents --mutations.
What causes DNA Mutations
Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals
2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.
Page 87 of “Evolution in Four Dimensions”
It was simply assumed that all mutations are blind mistakes, the outcome of faults in the system.
They are mistakes, and if they make any difference at all at the phenotypic level, they are almost always sorry mistakes. Only very rarely will a chance lucky mistake increase the likelihood that a cell or organism will leave descendants.
At 8:09 PM,
Thought Provoker said…
Please forgive me for providing Joe an excuse for avoiding the point.
"Information connect" was a typo. I meant to ask...
if a baseball sized rock is sitting on your couch next to a broken window, would the rock's "information content" then be specified?
To be followed up with...
How about if there were two baseball-sized rocks (and two broken windows)? Would that be more specified information?
My compliments to those who understood the intent of my queries.
At 7:25 AM,
Joe G said…
Please forgive me for providing Joe an excuse for avoiding the point.
What point?
Please be specific.
if a baseball sized rock is sitting on your couch next to a broken window, would the rock's "information content" then be specified?
It depends on whether or not there is a presence of work and/ or counterflow.
It would also depend on whether or not said rock was at one time a missle.
Then if said rock was a missle was it set in motion by nature, operating freely or agency involvement?
How about if there were two baseball-sized rocks (and two broken windows)? Would that be more specified information?
Same thing.
My compliments to those who understood the intent of my queries.
I understand your intent- it is to be as much of an asshole as possible without ever having to support your PoV.
At 7:40 AM,
Joe G said…
TP?
Does this- your absence- mean that you didn't have a point?
And Touch-hole-
What happened to you?
At 8:16 PM,
blipey said…
You dolt, he just stopped talking to the wall. you may recognize it....
At 7:12 AM,
Joe G said…
He is a dolt and a wall.
YOU are a dolt and a wall.
And I do recognze it.
So what is your point?
At 7:25 PM,
blipey said…
geez, Joe.
Do we have to go back to the discussion of what the elements of comedy are? The offer of taking my comedic acting class for free is still good.
In the meantime, try working with the concept that mere repetition is not comedy. You must work with the subtext of the quote in order to get comedy from it.
At 7:51 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
YOU are the joke.
You just don't get it...
At 8:03 PM,
blipey said…
I couldn't write a script better. Thanks.
At 8:48 PM,
Joe G said…
You couldn't write a script...
At 12:09 AM,
blipey said…
Hey, why don't you address the actual issues that posters have brought up and not worry about your moribund rhetorical skills? (Which post will Joe address? There should be a pool....)
At 7:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Nice projection clowny.
Ya see YOU NEVER address the actual issues.
All you can do is what you are doing- playing the fool- because you are the fool.
I answered TP.
He went away.
IOW it is obvious TP didn't have a point and the only issue is how much of an asshole TP, touchstone, blipey, Kellogg, oleg, and Richie are and can they reach a new low?
And there should be a pool- as in when are you maggots ever going to support your position?
IOW when are the posters going to address the actual issues?
Not likely to be any time soon.
At 7:36 AM,
Joe G said…
And clowny- do you still think that a patrilineage is a paternal family tree?
Why did YOU AND Zachriel run away from THAT issue?
At 9:49 AM,
blipey said…
Didn't run away, Joe. You closed comments on all the appropriate threads. Too funny.
At 2:11 PM,
Joe G said…
Ummm the REASONS I close threads are because you and your ilk refuse to support your claims and instead blather on with misrepresentations and down-right lies.
And most likely you have also gone way off-topic.
So if the threads are closed one or more of the above applies.
If you can't figure it out for yourself- I doubt you can- then bring up a specific case and I will explain it to you.
Also there are blog posts that discuss the biological evidence and it is very telling that not one of you can respond appropriately- if at all- in any of those threads.
Too funny, indeed.
It is also very funny that touch-hole ran away from this thread once I exposed his ignorance when he thought he was exposing mine.
And once again you show up blathering incoherently like the little whiny baby you are- nothing to offer and no indication of any understanding of what is being discussed.
If you are good at being a clown, stick to it.
Because you suck at trying to understand anything outside of that.
At 3:44 PM,
blipey said…
Ah, let's all feel sorry for Joe. He's so smart that no one will talk to him. It must be hard bearing the burdens of the world.
At 3:45 PM,
blipey said…
Go see some farce or a satire, Joe; it'll do ya good. I know there's still some theatre in New Hampshire (though hopefully some God fearing Muslim like yourself will close it down).
At 3:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Another meaningless comment that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
What the fuck were you responding to?
Or are you just continuing to prove my point- that you are a clue-less tool?
At 3:49 PM,
Joe G said…
One more time- to the tune of "My Name is Pancho"-
My name is bli-pey
A pinhead like Zip-py
I'm neither man, nor woman, nor gay.
I'm not just a pin-head.
In fact I am brain dead.
A dead brain that has rotten away- Ole!!!!
At 3:50 PM,
blipey said…
Your multiple comments that no one will respond to you.
Your multiple comments that imply you've won an argument because no one cares to discuss anything with you anymore.
Try a little introspection, Joe. Then, when done with that, try gandering at the whole world. It may interest you.
At 3:51 PM,
blipey said…
I hear beer does wonders for headaches. I'd try a less malty one for starters and then maybe have a lie-down.
At 4:01 PM,
Joe G said…
clowny,
You and your ilk are all the comedy I need.
That and South Park.
Your multiple comments that no one will respond to you.Usually because no one can.
Your multiple comments that imply you've won an argument because no one cares to discuss anything with you anymore.You mean those people who refuse to support their position?
Those people who make bald assertions and false accusations
Who cares about them?
I am more than willing to put my money where my mouth is.
So who cares what intellectual cowards do or don't do?
BTW clowny I have seen the world.
I know I have seen much more of it than you have.
You are a clue-less tool who couldn't support a thing because you are just too weak-minded to do so.
You mentioned beer- is that what you give to the little boys before molesting them?
BTW I don't fear "God".
At 4:05 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey's multiple meaningless comments.
blipey's inability to follow along.
blipey's inability to understand anything.
Try pulling your head out of your ass- that would be a good first step.
At 5:32 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey doing a little introspecting.
At 7:30 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, the source of humor is originality. I'm telling you, help is out there. Enroll in a class. Mine's free for you, though I understand that the commute is long. But, I'm sure there's a community theatre near you that may be able to help.
At 8:51 PM,
Joe G said…
the source of humor is originality.That leaves you out.
Although you may be the only "blipey", just about any juggling fool can do what you do.
help is out there.Then find it. You need all the help you can get.
<< Home