How to figure out information content of an object
-
Anti-IDists think their ignorance is meaningful discourse.
They refuse to understand Intelligent Design concepts and refuse to tell us the process or processes used to determine the observed design is only illusory.
Even if I hold their hand through the process they get all belligerent and shit.
So let me explain-
It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.
Data collection and compression. (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control)
A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.
That said there isn't any need to get an exact number as that is irrelevent- it is irrelevent because all we are trying to do is determine whether or not agency involvement is required.
Therefor all we need to do is determine if CSI is present or not as the presence of CSI is evidence for design.
And to refute that inference all the doubters have to do is show that CSI can arise without agency involvement.
That is where the EF comes in-
Negative, ignorance-laiden complaints about ID do not help make the case for their position.
However seeing that they cannot provide positive evidence for their position all they can do is to attack ID with their ignorance.
And that alone is funny as hell...
Anti-IDists think their ignorance is meaningful discourse.
They refuse to understand Intelligent Design concepts and refuse to tell us the process or processes used to determine the observed design is only illusory.
Even if I hold their hand through the process they get all belligerent and shit.
So let me explain-
The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Artifact
It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.
One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.
Data collection and compression. (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control)
A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.
That said there isn't any need to get an exact number as that is irrelevent- it is irrelevent because all we are trying to do is determine whether or not agency involvement is required.
Therefor all we need to do is determine if CSI is present or not as the presence of CSI is evidence for design.
And to refute that inference all the doubters have to do is show that CSI can arise without agency involvement.
That is where the EF comes in-
Negative, ignorance-laiden complaints about ID do not help make the case for their position.
However seeing that they cannot provide positive evidence for their position all they can do is to attack ID with their ignorance.
And that alone is funny as hell...
posted by Joe G @ 9:01 AM
34 Comments:
At 10:28 AM,
Ghostrider said…
Let me get this straight:
You can't calculate the value of this CSI, but based on your subjective opinion you can tell it contains 'some'.
Then, again based on your subjective guess that 'some' is 'enough' you declare the object to be intelligently designed.
That doesn't sound very scientifically rigorous to me.
Can you give us some examples of objects that contain no CSI, or do contain CSI but not enough to infer design?
Also, you apparently define CSI as different from CI because it matches some pre-known specified pattern. Where did your knowledge of the pre-known specified pattern come from? Just describing something as being 'specifed' after you have examined it tells you absolutely nothing.
At 11:40 AM,
Joe G said…
Nope- you don't have it straught.
Not even close.
All that needs to be done is to see if CSI is present.
And we do that by figuring out what is required to account for its existence.
As for scientifically rigorous what does your position have so we can compare?
And the following just exposes your ihgnorance:
Can you give us some examples of objects that contain no CSI, or do contain CSI but not enough to infer design?
You don't even understand the concept of complex specified information, do you?
Also, you apparently define CSI as different from CI because it matches some pre-known specified pattern. Where did your knowledge of the pre-known specified pattern come from? Just describing something as being 'specifed' after you have examined it tells you absolutely nothing.
So willfull ignorance at that.
I just blogged about tat very thing.
Try pulling your head out of your ass- that should help.
Do you think you can waltz in here and badger me with your ignorance?
Do you think you can waltz in here and demand shit of me based on your ignorance and not answer any of my questions?
Are you really that much of a fucking asshole?
At 4:58 PM,
Ghostrider said…
OK, thanks for confirming you have no objective, scientifically rigorous way of measuring CSI, or even determining if any is present save for your subjective opinion.
What happens when person 1 says "I see CSI" and person 2 says "there's no CSI there". How do you objectively determine who's right?
Since you can't give an example of an object that contains no CSI, does that mean everything is 'designed'?
At 5:47 PM,
Joe G said…
OK, thanks for confirming you have no objective, scientifically rigorous way of measuring CSI, or even determining if any is present save for your subjective opinion.
You have failed to provide an example of scientific rigor from your position.
That way we can compare.
As for measuring CSI just count the freakin' bits of specified information.
Are you that stupid that you can't even understand that?
What happens when person 1 says "I see CSI" and person 2 says "there's no CSI there". How do you objectively determine who's right?
Exactly as I have said- figure out what it takes to account for it.
You are trying to determine what is required to bring whatever it is into existence.
Since you can't give an example of an object that contains no CSI, does that mean everything is 'designed'?
Obviously your brain doesn't contain any CSI.
Do you really think your pathetic ignorance in any way refutes ID?
Do you really think that your inability to support your position helps you?
At 5:56 PM,
blipey said…
So, an example of what you're talking about is coming soon?
For example,
Does a loaf of bread contain CSI?
How about a stalk of wheat?
Does the wheat contain more or less information than the loaf of bread?
Does the line demarcating CSI lie between wheat and bread? Or are both designed? Or neither?
What numbers can we rely on to tell us these answers?
It would be really helpful to your case if you were to work an example such as the one above about bread. It doesn't have to be bread, use your own items. But an example may sway the masses.
At 6:03 PM,
Ghostrider said…
As for measuring CSI just count the freakin' bits of specified information.
How can anyone 'count the bits' when you can't even objectively identify what objects contain this magic CSI?
Why don't you just show the actual calculations for a real world biological object instead of just claiming it can be done?
I'll assume you were just bullshitting if you can't do it, OK?
At 6:21 PM,
Joe G said…
How can anyone 'count the bits' when you can't even objectively identify what objects contain this magic CSI?
I told you how to do it.
Are you admitting that you are too stupid to follow directions?
Why don't you just show the actual calculations for a real world biological object instead of just claiming it can be done?
To do that all you have to do is count the bits- ie each nucleotide is two bits- so how then you figure out how many nucleotides are required- for example to have a living organism.
Then if it is 500 bits or more you have CSI.
Next to refute the premise that CSI = design all you have to do is demonstrate that blind, undirected processes can account for it.
So I take it that you are completely ignorant of ID- and you think you can use your ignorance to refute it.
Strange...
At 6:30 PM,
Joe G said…
So, an example of what you're talking about is coming soon?
Already happened.
I have even presented it to you on more than one occasion.
How many examples do you need?
Does a loaf of bread contain CSI?
Yes.
How about a stalk of wheat?
Yes
Does the wheat contain more or less information than the loaf of bread?
Not relevant
At 6:35 PM,
Joe G said…
An example of measuring information is provided in the OP.
All one has to do is follow the links provided- hint it's the second one- and the example will be there.
Along with that example are directions on how someone with an IQ over 75 can do it for themselves.
That said why is that evotards NEVER provide any examples to support teir position?
Why can they only ignorantly flail awy at ID all the while holding all the cards- IOW they can control the whole debate just by supporting their claims that living organisms can be reduced to matter and energy (chance and necessity).
They don't need to bother with IC and CSI because if they can demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce it then ID is falsified!
Yet they have to come here screaming and shoot their load like the little evotard mental-midgets they are.
Just wonderful...
At 6:47 PM,
Ghostrider said…
To do that all you have to do is count the bits- ie each nucleotide is two bits- so how then you figure out how many nucleotides are required- for example to have a living organism.
Then if it is 500 bits or more you have CSI.
How many nucleotides does a baseball have Joe?
How do I count the bits in it?
If something has no nucleotides to count, that mean it has no CSI and therefore is not designed, right?
At 6:54 PM,
Joe G said…
How many nucleotides does a baseball have Joe?
So you are proud to be a drooling imbecile.
Why would you think a baseball has nucleotides?
You asked for a BIOLOGICAL example:
Why don't you just show the actual calculations for a real world biological object instead of just claiming it can be done?
Are you that fucked up tat you can't even follow your own posts?
If something has no nucleotides to count, that mean it has no CSI and therefore is not designed, right?
Only a completely ignorant person would ask such a question.
You have no idea what CSI is, do you?
At 6:56 PM,
Joe G said…
Along with that example are directions on how someone with an IQ over 75 can do it for themselves.
And now we know that Thorton's IQ is less than 75.
I am not sure who has the lower IQ- Thorton or blipey.
These guys are soooo dense people refer to them as walking black holes...
At 7:34 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Why would you think a baseball has nucleotides?
You told everyone you could calculate the CSI of baseball, remember?
Now when I ask you how to calculate the CSI, you say 'count the nucleotides'.
I agree a baseball has no nucleotides to count, so where does the CSI value of a baseball come from?
BTW, there are well known natural processes that can increase the size of a genome (i.e. segment duplication with point mutations), which according to you means the CSI 'bit' value also increases.
Now that you admit we have natural processes that by your own definition can create new CSI, how does having CSI indicate design?
At 8:04 PM,
Joe G said…
Why would you think a baseball has nucleotides?
You told everyone you could calculate the CSI of baseball, remember?
No I was asked to do such a thing and I told the moron who asked how to do it.
Now when I ask you how to calculate the CSI, you say 'count the nucleotides'.
So you are an asshole.
You asked about a BIOLOGICAL OBJECT:
Why don't you just show the actual calculations for a real world biological object instead of just claiming it can be done?
I even pointed that out to you- are you really that retarded?
BTW, there are well known natural processes that can increase the size of a genome (i.e. segment duplication with point mutations), which according to you means the CSI 'bit' value also increases.
BTW "natural" is meaningless as the debate is about blind, undirected processes vs puposeful, directed processes.
And as far as anyone knows gene duplication is a design mechanism.
Also just duplicating a gene doesn't increase the information- do having two copies of teh same dictionary equal twice the information? No
Now that you admit we have natural processes that by your own definition can create new CSI, how does having CSI indicate design?
Nature, operating freely asshole.
Design is a natural process.
My car is natural, yet we know nature, operating freely cannot produce one.
IOW Thorton you are pure asshole...
At 9:32 PM,
blipey said…
So biological things have different CSI than non-biological things? Hmmmm.
At 9:33 PM,
blipey said…
What about the CSI of quantum things? Would that be different CSI than either biological or geophysical things?
At 9:47 PM,
Joe G said…
So biological things have different CSI than non-biological things?
The "I" is different.
But CSI is CSI whether or not we are discussing biology or not.
But thank you for continuing to fulfill the predictions made in the OP.
At 10:43 PM,
blipey said…
Any chance that you'll show us how to calculate the information content of anything by working an example?
At 10:59 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Also just duplicating a gene doesn't increase the information- do having two copies of teh same dictionary equal twice the information? No
You told us you can measure the CSI of a biological object just by counting the nucleotides, remember?
Joe G.: "To do that all you have to do is count the bits- ie each nucleotide is two bits- so how then you figure out how many nucleotides are required- for example to have a living organism."
Duplication = more nucleotides, more nucleotides = more bits, especially when the duplicated segment then incurs a mutation, an event which is commonly observed.
More bits = more CSI by your own definition.
Are you always this confused?
At 6:37 AM,
Joe G said…
Any chance that you'll show us how to calculate the information content of anything by working an example?
I already have asshole.
It is in the second second link in the OP.
At 6:38 AM,
Joe G said…
You told us you can measure the CSI of a biological object just by counting the nucleotides, remember?
So you are an asshole.
Got it.
At 6:59 AM,
Joe G said…
You told us you can measure the CSI of a biological object just by counting the nucleotides, remember?
Context is important asshole:
One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.
Data collection and compression. (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control)
IOW if applied to a living organism then you find the minimal genome required and count the bits to see if CSI is present.
Becauser once design is established for the minimal genome then every othet genome falls in line.
At 7:05 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Since you've admitted you can't do an actual calculation for the CSI of a biological object, there's really no point in continuing.
Come back when you IDCers can do something besides rant and wave your hands.
At 7:41 PM,
Joe G said…
Since you've admitted you can't do an actual calculation for the CSI of a biological object,
Why is it that when the evotard's ignorance is exposed they always revert to lying?
IOW if applied to a living organism then you find the minimal genome required and count the bits to see if CSI is present.
What part of that don't you understand?
Here, I will spoon-feed the drooling retard (it won't help):
The team started with the bacterium M. genitalium, an obligate intracellular parasite whose genome consists of 482 genes and 580,000 base pairs, arranged on one circular chromosome (the smallest genome of any known natural organism that can be grown in free culture).
So to make this as simple as possible- and given Throton and blipey it will not be simple enough- we have 580,000 nucleotides, 2 bits per nucleotide.
580,000 x 2 = 1,160,000 bits of specified information- minimum, in the smallest genomed organism.
At 7:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Missing reference for last post-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium
At 10:00 PM,
blipey said…
You call that a worked example? You never did explain why a definition equals information.
You never explained how to determine which definition one would use.
You never explained why any of our alternate definitions of aardvark were incorrect.
Jesus, Joe. Try working an example. An example is something that shows the basics of a concept, so that other problems may be worked from it.
How about a real example? One that could be applied to an aardvark, a baseball, and a black hole?
At 11:15 PM,
Ghostrider said…
So you examine something after the fact and declare it to be 'CSI' with zero understanding or accounting for how the structure got there. You ignore known natural mechanisms that increase the size and complexity of the genome. You ignore the fact that there are multiple paths to produce the same protein, so the one path you are examining is not the only way for life to exist.
Why didn't you decide to count the individual molecules that make up each nucleotide? Then you'd get heaps and gobs of more 'CSI' goodness.
Yet you still wonder why the IDCers get laughed at.
At 6:51 AM,
Joe G said…
You call that a worked example? You never did explain why a definition equals information.
Yes it is a worked example and everyone in the world that has an IQ over 50 knows that a definition is information.
Are you that retarded?
You never explained how to determine which definition one would use.
Yes I did.
I explained it to you.
You never explained why any of our alternate definitions of aardvark were incorrect.
I went over everything Erik.
Just because you are an ignorant asshole doesn't mean anything to me.
At 6:56 AM,
Joe G said…
So you examine something after the fact and declare it to be 'CSI' with zero understanding or accounting for how the structure got there.
More ignorant spewage.
Hey asshole science is done via observation and examination of the evidence.
Do you think the theory of evolution was produced BEFORE life evolved?
Do you really think you ignorance is meaningful discourse?
Or was it an after-the-fact hypothesis of what occurred?
You ignore known natural mechanisms that increase the size and complexity of the genome.
Again with the conflation.
Ther e aren't any known blind, unfirected processes known to create genomes from scratch.
There aren't any known blind, undirected processes tat are known to increase information- SI.
You ignore the fact that there are multiple paths to produce the same protein, so the one path you are examining is not the only way for life to exist.
You ignore the fact that there aren;t any known blind, undirected processes known to create a protein from scratch.
IOW asshole if you could just support your position with real data then ID would fade away.
However all you can is to argue from ignorance.
What a piece of shit you are.
You had beetr support your bald assertions with your next post or fuck off.
At 4:50 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So what is the CSI of a cake, again?
At 7:15 PM,
Joe G said…
So what is the CSI of a cake, again?
What is the complex specified information of a cake?
All the information it takes to bake one.
Do you think a cake can arise without CSI?
Then bake it and eat it if you dare...
At 2:34 AM,
blipey said…
Wait. Now the CSI of a cake is all the information that the cake contains?
I thought that CSI couldn't be measured. You said it was a boolean value. One measures the Information and if it is over 500 Somethings, then CSI exists. If I is less than 500 Somethings, then CSI does not exist.
But now you tell us that the CSI is all the I contained in the cake...
You need to make up your mind or that ID textbook will never make it out of chapter one.
At 7:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Wait. Now the CSI of a cake is all the information that the cake contains?
What do you mean "Now"?
That is how it has always been.
That is how I have always explained it.
I thought that CSI couldn't be measured.
You are incapable of original thought- so that is the problem.
CSI is a measuremnet dick-head.
So what we have is Erik Pratt's ignorance exposed- as usual- and he fights back with more ignorance.
Life is good... :)
At 7:02 AM,
Joe G said…
From the link Erik ignores:
Now what do we do when all we have is an object?
One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.
Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.
That will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains.
I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.
And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information?
Again just count the bits in the instructions.
For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.
Erik Pratt- ignorant faggot at large...
Post a Comment
<< Home