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

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Of MathGrrl, CSI and Being Purposely Obtuse

-
Over on Uncommon Descent MathGrrl had a guest post on Calculating CSI. She said:
In the abstract of Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, William Demski asks “Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?” Many ID proponents answer this question emphatically in the affirmative, claiming that Complex Specified Information is a metric that clearly indicates intelligent agency.

As someone with a strong interest in computational biology, evolutionary algorithms, and genetic programming, this strikes me as the most readily testable claim made by ID proponents. For some time I’ve been trying to learn enough about CSI to be able to measure it objectively and to determine whether or not known evolutionary mechanisms are capable of generating it. Unfortunately, what I’ve found is quite a bit of confusion about the details of CSI, even among its strongest advocates.

My first detailed discussion was with UD regular gpuccio, in a series of four threads hosted by Mark Frank. While we didn’t come to any resolution, we did cover a number of details that might be of interest to others following the topic.

CSI came up again in a recent thread here on UD. I asked the participants there to assist me in better understanding CSI by providing a rigorous mathematical definition and showing how to calculate it for four scenarios:

1.A simple gene duplication, without subsequent modification, that increases production of a particular protein from less than X to greater than X. The specification of this scenario is “Produces at least X amount of protein Y.”

2.Tom Schneider’s ev evolves genomes using only simplified forms of known, observed evolutionary mechanisms, that meet the specification of “A nucleotide that binds to exactly N sites within the genome.” The length of the genome required to meet this specification can be quite long, depending on the value of N. (ev is particularly interesting because it is based directly on Schneider’s PhD work with real biological organisms.)

3.Tom Ray’s Tierra routinely results in digital organisms with a number of specifications. One I find interesting is “Acts as a parasite on other digital organisms in the simulation.” The length of the shortest parasite is at least 22 bytes, but takes thousands of generations to evolve.

4.The various Steiner Problem solutions from a programming challenge a few years ago have genomes that can easily be hundreds of bits. The specification for these genomes is “Computes a close approximation to the shortest connected path between a set of points.”

There is more but I will focus on that part.

In the abstract of Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, William Demski asks “Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?” Many ID proponents answer this question emphatically in the affirmative, claiming that Complex Specified Information is a metric that clearly indicates intelligent agency.

Archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers agree with what Dembski said. Their jobs depend on it.

The point of CSI as an indicator is that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via some designing agency. And we have never observed Mother Nature producing CSI.

Next MathGrrl wants a "rigorous mathematical definition of CSI". I am not sure what she is looking for- an equation? Computer programs contain CSI, is there a mathematically rigorous definition for computer programs?

But anyway- Claude Shannon provided the math for information. Specification is Shannon information with meaning/ function (in biology specified information is cashed out as biological function). And Complex means it is specified information of 500 bits or more- that math being taken care of in "No Free Lunch".

That is it- specified information of 500 bits or more is Complex Specified Information. It is that simple.

Another confusion for MathGrrl is her refusal to understand that CSI pertains to ORIGINS. I provided the quotes from Dembski and Meyer but she refuses to accept it. Willful ignorance is not a good way to try to learn about something.

Why is this important? She brings up gene duplications. Gene duplications in already existing organisms. That is cheating as gene duplications can only be called blind watchmaker processes if living organisms arose from non-living matter via blind watchmaker processes- all about origins.

The point being is a gene duplication in a design scenario would not increase the existing CSI as it would be part of it. And if the blind watchmaker produced living organisms from non-living matter then you don't need gene duplications, ID is already falsified.

Which brings us to her equivocal use of "evolutionary mechanisms". The point of CSI is that blind watchmaker processes cannot generate it it from scratch and "evolutionary" mechanisms can, for all she knows, be design mechanisms.

She thinks that just because we understand the process it means it is a blind watchmaker process. She also thinks that ID requires a designer to come in and physically change the DNA. I'm telling you this person is fried. To wit- we understand the process of executing computer programs- the paths the signals take to produce a result. Yet no one would say computers run via blind watchmaker processes. And I don't need a computer programmer here to make the decisions the program can make without intervention. IOW she doesn't even understand the first thing about Intelligent Design.

OK, moving on. In her point 3 she has a digital organism of 22 bytes. 22 bytes = 176 bits. That is 176 bits of information carrying capacity so depending on the specificity that will determine the amount of specified information.

So that is how you do it- count the bits and check on the variability. If you have 500 bits but any arrangement can cause the same effect then it ain't specified.

111 Comments:

  • At 3:58 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    So that is how you do it- count the bits and check on the variability.

    Then why don't you calculate and post the values for the 4 examples MathGrrl posted on UD if it's so very easy to calculate?

    The point being is a gene duplication in a design scenario would not increase the existing CSI as it would be part of it.

    I'm sure MathGrrl would be interested in the calculation that lies behind that claim. If, of course, there is indeed one.

     
  • At 6:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Then why don't you calculate and post the values for the 4 examples MathGrrl posted on UD if it's so very easy to calculate?

    Are you stupid? Show me which one of her "examples" deals with ORIGINS.

    The point being is a gene duplication in a design scenario would not increase the existing CSI as it would be part of it.

    OM:
    I'm sure MathGrrl would be interested in the calculation that lies behind that claim.

    So you are stupid, really stupid.

    Explain why you think your stupidity means something.

     
  • At 8:37 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Hey Joe, you say:

    "MathGrrl is stuck on the fact that CSI is just ONE tool in ID’s tool-box of design detection. She thinks it is the only tool."

    "Information can be measured.

    Specification can be observed and perhaps measured.

    Complexity can be measured."

    How much complexity, specification, and information is there in an African Elephant, a California Newt, and a Venus Flytrap?

    Also, how exactly would the C, S, and I be measured, and which tools would be used?

     
  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Are you stupid? Show me which one of her "examples" deals with ORIGINS.

    Show me where Dembski says that's relevant. In fact he specifically states that you don't have to know anything about the history of an object to be able to determine it's CSI value. I can provide direct quotations if you insist.

     
  • At 8:43 AM, Blogger Alan Fox said…

    BTW Joe, stupidity and intelligence are two more examples of qualities which are not quantifiable.

    Just like you can't measure CSI in any meaningful way, neither can you measure intelligence or stupidity. You might justifiably claim that performance difference at some set task by two human subjects demonstrates differing intelligence or stupidity but this is just descriptive and you cannot quantify intelligence or stupidity.

    But do carry on with spreading your message. You are a wonderful spokesman for ID. Please keep it up.

     
  • At 8:58 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard: In the abstract of Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, William Demski asks “Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?” Many ID proponents answer this question emphatically in the affirmative, claiming that Complex Specified Information is a metric that clearly indicates intelligent agency.

    Archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers agree with what Dembski said. Their jobs depend on it.


    The bolded part is why your analogy falls flat on its face. Archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers do have previous information on the topic under investigation. Archaeologists do have previous artifacts to compare the unknown too. Forensic scientists do have previous examples of trace evident to compare the unknown too. SETI researchers do have previous examples of signal types to compare the unknown too.

    What previously known examples of biological life do you have to make your comparison? You claim to see specified information, but where is your before-the-fact specification? Any IDiot can measure a genome and claim after the fact that it was specified.

     
  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Are you stupid? Show me which one of her "examples" deals with ORIGINS.

    OM:
    Show me where Dembski says that's relevant.

    For one page 149 of "No Free Lunch"

    OM:
    In fact he specifically states that you don't have to know anything about the history of an object to be able to determine it's CSI value.

    Your stupidity means nothing to me.

     
  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Alan,

    Your stupidity is meaningless here also.

    We use CSI in our every day lives.

     
  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    The bolded part is why your analogy falls flat on its face.

    Fuck you liar.

    tardtard:
    Archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers do have previous information on the topic under investigation.

    Not necessarily.

    tardtard:
    Archaeologists do have previous artifacts to compare the unknown too.

    Right- as I said our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    Are you that fucking stupid?

    But anyway tardtard, what the fuck does your position have?

    Even if ID didn't exist you still couldn't support your position.

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtardtoo:
    How much complexity, specification, and information is there in an African Elephant, a California Newt, and a Venus Flytrap?

    More than enough to know CSI is present.

     
  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard said..

    We use CSI in our every day lives.


    Then why is it so hard for you to come up with a numerical example from our every day lives?

     
  • At 10:01 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Seems to me CSI = pornography.

    You can't define it but you know it when you see it.

     
  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Seems to me CSI = pornography.

    You can't define it but you know it when you see it.


    I defined it in the OP you moron.

     
  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We use CSI in our every day lives.

    tardtard:
    Then why is it so hard for you to come up with a numerical example from our every day lives?

    Computers and their programs are an example of CSI- houses are built using CSI. Cars are built using CSI. Food is processed using CSI. Baseballs are made using CSI.

     
  • At 10:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Alan Fox:
    Just like you can't measure CSI in any meaningful way,

    Actually Alan, we can.

    For example take two papers- one with generalizations and vague claims taking 5 minutes to read and understand and rejected by peer-review. The other full of specifics and details, gets to the point, takes an hour to read and is published.

    Which paper do you think contains more CSI?

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyway- Claude Shannon provided the math for information. Specification is Shannon information with meaning/ function (in biology specified information is cashed out as biological function). And Complex means it is specified information of 500 bits or more- that math being taken care of in "No Free Lunch".

    That is it- specified information of 500 bits or more is Complex Specified Information. It is that simple.

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

    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.

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard said...

    The point being is a gene duplication in a design scenario would not increase the existing CSI as it would be part of it.


    So let me get this straight.

    I start with a gene of length 32 base pairs. I give it to IDCer One and he uses your formula for determining CSI from the number of base pairs as 5 bits

    The gene then undergoes a duplication event to length 64 base pairs. I give it to IDCer Two and he uses your formula for determining CSI from the number of base pairs. He gets a CSI value of 6 bits, or one bit larger than IDCer One's case.

    But you now are saying the CSI in the two samples is the same since a gene duplication event doesn't increase CSI.

    Which is it Joe? You are making two directly contradictory claims.

     
  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dembski "No Free Lunch" page 149:

    'The central problem of biology is therefore not simply the origin of infomation but the origin of complex specified information.'

    and

    'Algorithms and natural laws are in principle incapable of explaining the origin of CSI.'

    The point of his quote in the OP (that mathgrrl quote-mined) is that if CSI is present tehn we know it arose via a designing agency.

     
  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard: We use CSI in our every day lives.

    T: Then why is it so hard for you to come up with a numerical example from our every day lives?

    JT: Computers and their programs are an example of CSI- houses are built using CSI. Cars are built using CSI. Food is processed using CSI. Baseballs are made using CSI.


    Then why is it so hard for you to come up with a NUMERICAL EXAMPLE from our every day lives?

    What is the NUMERICAL VALUE of the CSI in a house? In a baseball?

    Do the math for us Joe, if you can.

     
  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    What is the NUMERICAL VALUE of the CSI in a house? In a baseball?

    So you are proud of your ignorance.

    Tell me how your ignorance refutes CSI?

     
  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The point being is a gene duplication in a design scenario would not increase the existing CSI as it would be part of it.

    tardtard:
    I start with a gene of length 32 base pairs.

    No such gene exists. Not only that but you are ignoring the CONTEXT of what I said.

    IOW tardtard you are a fucking loser and a liar.

    Why do you think your drooling ignorance is meaningful discourse?

     
  • At 10:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And tardtard- you do your own math, if you can.

    But it would be even better if you could provide positive evidence for your position.

    My bet is you are too cowardly to do either.

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard, you're so cute when your own stupidity backs you into a corner and you start spewing obscenities!

     
  • At 10:41 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe G said...

    And tardtard- you do your own math, if you can.


    I did do the math Joe

    32 base pairs = 5 bits.

    Duplicated to 64 base pairs = 6 bits.

    Is 5 the same as 6 in JoeTard World?

    Where did the extra CSI come from?

     
  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    No such gene exists

    From somebody who claims that the earth is ~6000 years old I find it hard to take any of your claims seriously.

    Have you ever heard of an "example" Joe?

    Tell me, if you know "no such gene exists" could you tell me what the minimum gene length actually is and how you know that fact?

     
  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    From somebody who claims that the earth is ~6000 years old I find it hard to take any of your claims seriously.

    You are a piece of shit liar as I have never claimed any such thing.

    And you have lied before- you are a pthological liar. So that means no one can ever take anything you say seriously.

     
  • At 10:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    32 base pairs = 5 bits.

    What math did you use?

    tardtard:
    Where did the extra CSI come from?

    Hey moron, CSI means 500 bits of specified information. It is in the OP you fucked up freak.

    And then there is the context of my quote taht you are ignoring as if your ignorance means something.

     
  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    you're so cute when your own stupidity backs you into a corner and you start spewing obscenities!

    The stupidity is all yours, as is the corner.

     
  • At 11:14 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    No math here again from Cakeboy.

    Have the recipe!
    Count the letters!

    Come on Cakeboy. You know the drill.

     
  • At 11:16 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    'Algorithms and natural laws are in principle incapable of explaining the origin of CSI.'

    This is asserted, but not supported.

     
  • At 11:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And RichTard chimes in with his usual meaningless drivel...

     
  • At 11:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    'Algorithms and natural laws are in principle incapable of explaining the origin of CSI.'

    RichTard:
    This is asserted, but not supported.

    It is supported by observations and experiences. However it can be refuted, just not by your ignorance

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "It is supported by observations and experiences."

    Gene duplication and GAs both increase information. CSI is an arbitrary information hurdle. QED.

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Gene duplication and GAs both increase information.

    No, they don't.

    GAs are designed programs tat produce the CSI they are pogrammed to produce (if they are so programmed- IOW the CSI traces back to the program and the programmer, dumbass) and gene duplications in a design scenario don't increase the CSI. Also gene duplications and the ooL don't go together.

    As I said your ignorance is not a refutation.

     
  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    CSI is an arbitrary information hurdle.

    Yeah, it could be lower but 500 bits of SI meets the UPB, so it ain't arbitrary. And your position can't explain 100 bits of SI so fuck you.

     
  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    No, they don't.

    "Yes they do"

    Its trivial to conceive a GA increassing a string from 499 bits to 501 bits of information (perhaps adding a new node to a steiner tree), thus creating CSI where there wan none before. Oops.

     
  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    GAs do NOT create CSI from scratch.

    Are you really that fucking stupid and desperate?

    All the CSI in a GA traces back to the program and programmer.

    Again you lose.

    Gene duplications require already existing CSI, ie a living organism.

    IOW you are still a fool.

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "meets the UPB, so it ain't arbitrary." - Yes it is. part of the 10^150 is 10^80, for the number of particles in the observable universe. But 'the observable universe' <> the universe.

    And even that 10^80 is acknowledged as being a lowball estimate:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Matter_content

    "A typical star has a mass of about 2×1030 kg, which is about 1×1057 atoms of hydrogen per star. A typical galaxy has about 400 billion stars so that means each galaxy has 1×1057 × 4×1011 = 4×1068 hydrogen atoms. There are possibly 80 billion galaxies in the universe, so that means that there are about 4×1068 × 8×1010 = 3×1079 hydrogen atoms in the observable universe. But this is definitely a lower limit calculation, and it ignores many possible atom sources such as intergalactic gas.[42]"

    Oops.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "All the CSI in a GA traces back to the program and programmer"

    That's not true at all. The programmer doesn't know the solution. If he did, he would write the GA.

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "All the CSI in a GA traces back to the program and programmer"

    Richtard
    That's not true at all.

    Of course it is true.

    RichTard:
    The programmer doesn't know the solution.

    That's not a requirement.

    The point is the program contains the CSI that the final product will have. and the program traces back to the programmer.

     
  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "meets the UPB, so it ain't arbitrary." -

    RichTard:
    Yes it is.

    Rich, the 500 is well above anything blind, undirected processes can produce. I doubt your position can account for 100 bits of SI.

    So stop bitching and start producing and maybe you will have something.

     
  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I defined it in the OP you moron.

    You might well have done so but you still remain unable to calculate it.

    You can only say "it exists".

    Woo-hoo. I can look at something and decide if I think it's designed or not. Seems I'm just as good as Dembski and you at "detecting design".

    Who'da thunk it!

     
  • At 12:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No OM, that you can act like a complete wanker doesn't refute CSI.

    That you are a total coward does not refute CSI.

    That you are a pathological liar does not refute CSI.

    The fact that CSI is a part of everyone's lives is just something you have to get used to.

     
  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    The point of CSI as an indicator is that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via some designing agency. And we have never observed Mother Nature producing CSI.,

    This is the laughable thing Joe.

    You "observe" CSI and know the cause - design.

    And when you "observe" CSI and don't know the cause because you've observed CSI you note design.

    So it seems that CSI is only present when you know something is designed in the first place! If you are unsure if something is designed or not you cannot calculate the CSI that's present (see the MathGrrl thread) and so as a design detector CSI is futile. It only tells you if something is designed or not if you already know if it's designed or not.

    What a useful metric!

    Prove me wrong Joe. Why don't you "observe CSI" in an object that nobody knows is designed or not and work out if it's actually designed or not?

    Oh, that's right....

     
  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The point of CSI as an indicator is that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via some designing agency. And we have never observed Mother Nature producing CSI.,

    OM:
    This is the laughable thing Joe.

    Moron droolers would laugh at it.

    OM:
    You "observe" CSI and know the cause - design.

    I said when we do observe CSI and know the cause it is always via some agency- always.

    OM:
    And when you "observe" CSI and don't know the cause because you've observed CSI you note design.

    It's the cause and effect relationship thing science uses.

    OM:
    So it seems that CSI is only present when you know something is designed in the first place!

    No. Even if we didn't know it was designed, if CSI is present then we would infer that it was and proceed accordingly.

    OM:
    If you are unsure if something is designed or not you cannot calculate the CSI that's present (see the MathGrrl thread) and so as a design detector CSI is futile.

    We can get a good calculation of the SI present and compare that to the CSI criteria.

    OM:
    Why don't you "observe CSI" in an object that nobody knows is designed or not and work out if it's actually designed or not?

    We have- living organisms you ignorant bastard.

     
  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "GAs do NOT create CSI from scratch."

    Yes they do. They can solve an infinite number of problems whose SI > 500. Are you claiming that we encode infinite information into them?

     
  • At 1:52 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Rich, the 500 is well above anything blind, undirected processes can produce. I doubt your position can account for 100 bits of SI.

    So stop bitching and start producing and maybe you will have something.
    "

    Yes, I wouldn't address the bitch slapping you got in my post either if I were you. Thank goodness I'm not.

     
  • At 2:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "GAs do NOT create CSI from scratch."

    RichTard:
    Yes they do.

    Prove it.

    Richtard:
    They can solve an infinite number of problems whose SI > 500.

    1- That doesn't mean they create CI from scratch. Try again.

    2- Not every GA can solve an infinite number of problems

    3- You are lying, again, as usual

     
  • At 2:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Rich, the 500 is well above anything blind, undirected processes can produce. I doubt your position can account for 100 bits of SI.

    So stop bitching and start producing and maybe you will have something.

    "

    RichTard:
    Yes,

    But you can't.

    And strange that you keep referencing a source that admits it is not credible.

     
  • At 2:54 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    The programmer doesn't know the solution.

    That's not a requirement.

    Okay - some some information, the solution, is generated. Correct?

     
  • At 2:56 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "1- That doesn't mean they create CI from scratch. Try again."

    So where does it come from, then. The specitivity is it is a problem solution -information that was not present before the GA and unknown to teh programmer.

    Keep making shit up, this is funny.

     
  • At 2:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Okay - some some information, the solution, is generated. Correct?

    It is doing what it is programmed to do.

     
  • At 2:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "1- That doesn't mean they create CSI from scratch. Try again."

    RichTard:
    So where does it come from, then.

    From the CSI containing program you twit.

    All the information and all the resources for the solution are in the program/ computer.

    Meyer goes over this in "Signature in the Cell".

     
  • At 3:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "All the information and all the resources for the solution are in the program/ computer."

    No they're not. If the information was there, you'd just take it not have to generate it using a program. Try again.

    Is Meyer an information theorist?

     
  • At 3:09 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    All the information and all the resources for the solution are in the program/ computer.

    If that's true then why do we bother running the program at all, if we added the answer in the first place?

    Why don't we just use the answer instead of putting it into a computer program and "finding it out" that way?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

     
  • At 3:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "All the information and all the resources for the solution are in the program/ computer."

    RichTard:
    No they're not.

    They have to be.

    RichTard:
    If the information was there, you'd just take it not have to generate it using a program.

    That's just stupid talk.

    And Meyer knows more about information thatn RichTard Hughes.

     
  • At 3:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    All the information and all the resources for the solution are in the program/ computer.

    OM:
    If that's true then why do we bother running the program at all, if we added the answer in the first place?

    Explain why you think you ignorance means something.

    The computer gets to the answer but only because it has the program and resources to do so.

     
  • At 3:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Sorry - is he in information theorist? Didn't catch you answer.

    Is it possible a GA's output to be bigger than the length of the GA itself? If so, and both are specified, where did the increased information come from?

     
  • At 3:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Still waiting for one algorithm that can generate CSI from scratch.

     
  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Sorry - is he in information theorist?

    Yes, you are sorry and you have proven to be a complete ignoramus when it comes to information.

    Richtard:
    Is it possible a GA's output to be bigger than the length of the GA itself?

    Still waiting on you to provide an example as opposed to just running your mouth.

     
  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Yes, you are sorry and you have proven to be a complete ignoramus when it comes to information."

    Is he or is he not an information theorist? Try to be honest.

    Is it possible a GA's output to be bigger than the length of the GA itself?

    What's that Joe, I bet you don't know! You can hazzard a guess. Have you ever coded a GA. Seen one? Do you understand them.

     
  • At 3:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Is he or is he not an information theorist?

    I don't know. However I do know he knows more about it than you do. IOW he has some experience with it.

    But if you want I can get one who agrees with Meyer- Donald E. Johnson, PhD Chemistry and PhD Computer and information sciences.

    I have a few of his books lying about.

    Richtard:
    Is it possible a GA's output to be bigger than the length of the GA itself?

    Do you mean contain more SI? No.

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Ooh - bonus for the ignorant - G's can find 1000s of solutions for a single problem. Each time you run it, you can potentially get a new solution (based on how your pseudo-random numbers are generated). Who's smuggling this extra information in. The code must surely be too small for all these solutions ;-)

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So when are we going to see this CSI generating algorithm?

    You had better get to it quickly. You refuse to aswer my questions so don't ask any. Make your point- bring the evidence, leave the rhetoric.

     
  • At 3:32 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I don't know"

    Hmmm - so why are you citing him on information theory then?

    Is it because you're predisposed to his particular brand of god-bothering?

    "Do you mean contain more SI? No."

    So you're asserting that tehg output (string) of a GA must be less then the length of the GA itself? Just to be clear.

     
  • At 3:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Ooh - bonus for the ignorant - G's can find 1000s of solutions for a single problem.

    So what?

    Richtard:
    Each time you run it, you can potentially get a new solution (based on how your pseudo-random numbers are generated).

    So what?

    RichTard:
    Who's smuggling this extra information in.

    What extra information? And I bet not one solution is CSI- IOW you are an imbecile.

     
  • At 3:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Hmmm - so why are you citing him on information theory then?

    He supports what he says.

    Who the fuck are you? You never support your bullshit.

    RichTard:
    Is it because you're predisposed to his particular brand of god-bothering?

    Except I'm not. oops... dipshit.

    "Do you mean contain more SI? No."

    Richtard:
    So you're asserting that tehg output (string) of a GA must be less then the length of the GA itself? Just to be clear.

    As your boyfriend says- length isn't everything moron

    Man are you pathetically stupid or what?

     
  • At 3:37 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    What extra information? And I bet not one solution is CSI- IOW you are an imbecile.

    By CSI you mean > 500 bits of SI, correct? So if I had solutions >500 bits, then I'd have (multiple) accounts of CSI, thus demolishing your assertions?

     
  • At 3:39 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "So you're asserting that tehg output (string) of a GA must be less then the length of the GA itself? Just to be clear.

    As your boyfriend says- length isn't everything moron

    Man are you pathetically stupid or what?"

    But are they not both speficied? A problem and a solution?

     
  • At 3:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    By CSI you mean > 500 bits of SI, correct? So if I had solutions >500 bits, then I'd have (multiple) accounts of CSI, thus demolishing your assertions?

    Your solutions are derived from existing CSI- the program and the machine. You are not generating it from scratch.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    But are they not both speficied?

    Whatever Rich. You refuse to listen and you obviously have your mind made up.

    If you have an example you would like to present now would be the time.

    I can run it by Dembski himself to see what he has to say.

    But I am finished with the chit-chat and I gotta go...

     
  • At 3:46 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Your solutions are derived from existing CSI- the program and the machine. You are not generating it from scratch. "

    We can measure the length of the program, and it's specified. We can measure the length of teh output, and its specified. Agreed?

    All the computer does is execute the code. It's just following instructions, right?

     
  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "But are they not both speficied?

    Whatever Rich. You refuse to listen and you obviously have your mind made up.

    If you have an example you would like to present now would be the time.

    I can run it by Dembski himself to see what he has to say.

    But I am finished with the chit-chat and I gotta go..."

    Its a perfectly reasonable question:

    But are they not both specified?

    Yes or No. Easy. I think "Yes" - would you agree?

     
  • At 4:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    We can measure the length of the program, and it's specified. We can measure the length of teh output, and its specified.

    You are not reading what I post. To me that means you are being willfully ignorant.

    Richtard:
    All the computer does is execute the code. It's just following instructions, right?

    The computer is existing CSI. The program and resources are existing CSI.

    As Dembski said:

    "To be sure, algorithms and natural laws can explain the flow of CSI. Indeed, algorithms and natural laws are ideally suited for transmitting already existing CSI."

    Those are the sentences following the quote you are attacking.

     
  • At 4:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Its a perfectly reasonable question:

    But are they not both specified?


    If you are going to ignore what I post- or is it you are too stupid to understand it- then it is useless trying to have a discussion with you.

    Now either put up or shut up.

    Prediction- Richtard will continue to be an asshole.

     
  • At 4:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Computer programs are wholly deterministic. They allow for no contingency, and thus can generate no information." "No Free Lunch" page 155

     
  • At 4:54 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Computer programs are wholly deterministic. They allow for no contingency, and thus can generate no information."

    Not true. If it's pseudorandom number generator is linked to the clock, then it is contingent upon teh time teh program is executed. DEMSBKIFAIL.

     
  • At 4:57 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Moi: "Its a perfectly reasonable question:

    But are they not both specified?"

    Hypocrite: "Now either put up or shut up."

    One of your many failign is there's no output that you wont, after the fact assert conforms to ID / ID predicts. So I'm getting your conclusion before I give you the evidence.

     
  • At 5:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Computer programs are wholly deterministic. They allow for no contingency, and thus can generate no information."

    RichTard:
    Not true.

    Bullshit.

    RichTard:
    If it's pseudorandom number generator is linked to the clock, then it is contingent upon teh time teh program is executed.

    Example please or admit you are a liar.

     
  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    needle-dick:
    "Its a perfectly reasonable question:

    But are they not both specified?"


    If you are going to ignore what I post- or is it you are too stupid to understand it- then it is useless trying to have a discussion with you.

    Now either put up or shut up.

    Prediction- Richtard will continue to be an asshole.


    Another prediction fulfilled. Go figure...

     
  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "If it's pseudorandom number generator is linked to the clock, then it is contingent upon teh time teh program is executed.

    Example please or admit you are a liar."

    Trivially easy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator#Clock_drift

    You don't know much about this do you? Should you be opining on information theory when basic computational knowledge escapes you?
    I wouldn't be throwing 'Liar' around so freely given your ignorance.

     
  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Its a perfectly reasonable question:

    But are they not both specified?"


    Oh wait - don't you know, can't you tell? What a bluffer you are! Pardon your ignorance!

     
  • At 5:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am asking for an example of an algorithm that uses pseudorandom number generator is linked to the clock and generates CSI.

    Geez you are a fucking jerk.

     
  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    "Its a perfectly reasonable question:

    But are they not both specified?"


    And if you read my OP you might be able to figure out the answer, dumbass.

     
  • At 5:30 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I am asking for an example of an algorithm that uses pseudorandom number generator is linked to the clock and generates CSI."

    Are you? After the fact (Joe goalpost move shocker!) - you origionally asked:

    "Example please or admit you are a liar."

    to the claim

    "If it's pseudorandom number generator is linked to the clock, then it is contingent upon teh time teh program is executed."

    which show's demski is wrong when he asserts:

    "Computer programs are wholly deterministic. They allow for no contingency, and thus can generate no information."

    One step at a time, little one.

    next you say:

    "And if you read my OP you might be able to figure out the answer, dumbass."

    Just give us your answer. That way you can't revise it afterwards. I'm liking this fishing trip - went as I predcited.

     
  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I am asking for an example of an algorithm that uses pseudorandom number generator is linked to the clock and generates CSI."

    Richtard:
    Are you?

    Yes asshole. Don't blame me because you are twisted and cannot follow along.

    "If it's pseudorandom number generator is linked to the clock, then it is contingent upon teh time teh program is executed."

    which show's demski is wrong when he asserts:

    "Computer programs are wholly deterministic. They allow for no contingency, and thus can generate no information."


    The PROGRAM is deterministic. Your example creates contingency via hardware. And you still haven't shown it creates information nevermind SI nor CSI.

    "And if you read my OP you might be able to figure out the answer, dumbass."

    Just give us your answer.

    I did. It's in the OP.

    And yes the fishing is good!

     
  • At 5:48 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Ah, poor Joe spinning away. Didn't even know that programs use time to generate pseudorandom numbers:

    http://www.howstuffworks.com/question697.htm

    "To create a random and unpredictable sequence, the seed must be a truly random number. To get this truly random number for the seed, most programs use the current date and time, converted to an integer value (for example, converted to the number of seconds that have elapsed since January 1, 1970). Since this is a different number every time you start the program, it makes a good seed"

    But then again, he think's ticks like watermelons:

    http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=30334235&page=0&vc=1

    "For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play."

    Must be all that hemoglobin.

    Next he claims

    "I did. It's in the OP." - to have answered a question before it was asked. But he's too cowardly to give a simple yes or no answer.


    Finally, I'd be remiss not to point UD visitors to his legendary CSI calculation:

    http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2009/03/measuring-information-specified.html

    Chew on that, MathGrrl!

     
  • At 5:57 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    The PROGRAM is deterministic.

    But nonetheless you have to run it to find out what happens. You cannot predict it perfectly.

    So, the PROGRAM is deterministic.

    Yes.

    It's output cannot be predicted by you.

    Therefore you can make no definitive statement about what CSI it does or does not contain.

    . Your example creates contingency via hardware.

    What do you think the universe is if matter and energy are information?

    And you still haven't shown it creates information nevermind SI nor CSI.

    If my program outputs a DNA sequence which upon checking against known sequences turns out to be for the common housefly does that output contain CSI?

    If my random number generator outputs a number 3 gigabytes in size and it turns out to be my very own genome does that have CSI?

     
  • At 6:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Ah, poor Joe spinning away. Didn't even know that programs use time to generate pseudorandom numbers:

    Time without hardware?

    Richtard:
    But then again, he think's ticks like watermelons:

    I know they do. And I will prove it again this coming summer.

    And I did answer your question in the OP. RichTard is admitting he is too stupid to understand it.

    Richtard:
    Finally, I'd be remiss not to point UD visitors to his legendary CSI calculation:

    Thanks for linking to more of your stupidity.

     
  • At 6:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM,

    Produce the GA and let us take a look- or fuck off.

     
  • At 6:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And programs with pseudorandom number generators are CSI and just channeling CSI.

     
  • At 6:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK, moving on. In her point 3 she has a digital organism of 22 bytes. 22 bytes = 176 bits. That is 176 bits of information carrying capacity so depending on the specificity that will determine the amount of specified information.

    So that is how you do it- count the bits and check on the variability. If you have 500 bits but any arrangement can cause the same effect then it ain't specified.


    IOW it ain't just the length.

     
  • At 6:17 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    just channeling CSI.

    From where to where? And if you can't measure it how do you know when it's there or not?

    Some programs presumably do output CSI.

    Some won't

    How do you tell the difference Joseph?

     
  • At 6:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    From where to where?

    Input to output.

    OM:
    And if you can't measure it how do you know when it's there or not?

    We can measure it. Shannon gave us the way to measure information carrying capacity. That is good enough for a tard like you.

    OM:
    Some programs presumably do output CSI.

    They don't generate it from scratch. That is the deal.

    So I take it you don't have any examples.

    Why are you commenting?

     
  • At 6:41 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joseph
    They don't generate it from scratch.

    Then what can? What is the essential limitation on what can generate CSI "from scratch".

    For example, let's say you presented me with two computer programs.

    One outputs data containing CSI.

    The other outputs random data.

    How can I tell the two programs apart?

    I add another program. Except it's not a program, it's a human pretending to be a program. Can I tell that if I only have data the computer outputs to me?

    If you say programs don't generate CSI from scratch it means you must have some test you can apply "to programs" to determine that, unless you have proven it for all programs. Which somehow I doubt.

     
  • At 7:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    They don't generate it from scratch.

    OM:
    Then what can?

    Designing agencies dickhead.

    OM:
    What is the essential limitation on what can generate CSI "from scratch".

    Planning.

    OM:
    For example, let's say you presented me with two computer programs.

    One outputs data containing CSI.

    The other outputs random data.

    How can I tell the two programs apart?


    Who the fuck cares? Can you read code? Then read it.

    OM:
    I add another program. Except it's not a program,

    Then you didn't add a program, did you?

    OM:
    it's a human pretending to be a program. Can I tell that if I only have data the computer outputs to me?

    You can't see the human?

    OM:
    If you say programs don't generate CSI from scratch it means you must have some test you can apply "to programs" to determine that, unless you have proven it for all programs.

    Whenever a program spontaneously arise you will have a point. Until then I am comfortable that all programs require programmers and a computer to run on.

     
  • At 11:18 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Produce the GA and let us take a look"

    No - were still making sure you understand the concepts. You seem to not have many of the basics.

    So,are they not both specified?"

    Yes or No, please.

     
  • At 11:20 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Until then I am comfortable that all programs require programmers and a computer to run on."

    Still ignorant:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming

    Doesn't know the subject matter. tsk tsk.

     
  • At 1:37 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So to recap:

    Joe -
    can't give straight answers
    Blissfully unaware about information and computing
    Can't calculate SI > CSI of things

     
  • At 4:00 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Until then I am comfortable that all programs require programmers and a computer to run on.

    that was not in fact my point, but it seems you are not capable of grasping the actual point.

     
  • At 7:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Until then I am comfortable that all programs require programmers and a computer to run on."

    RichTard:
    Still ignorant:

    Yes you are.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming


    Umm that supports my claim dumbass.

     
  • At 7:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Until then I am comfortable that all programs require programmers and a computer to run on.

    OM:
    that was not in fact my point, but it seems you are not capable of grasping the actual point.

    You didn't make a point. You just posted some vague spewage.

     
  • At 7:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Produce the GA and let us take a look"

    Richtard:
    No - were still making sure you understand the concepts.

    I know more about it than you ever will.

     
  • At 7:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To recap-

    RichTard Hughes continues to lie and make unsupportable claims.

    Typical but still pathetic.

     
  • At 7:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM-

    Show me a computer program tat doesn't contain CSI that runs on a computer that doesn't contain CSI that can produce CSI from scratch.

    That means the program can't contain SI nor can the computer.

    If you are unable to do so then you fucked up, again.

     
  • At 7:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Joe -
    can't give straight answers


    RichTard refuses to provide any answers.

    Blissfully unaware about information and computing

    More knowledgeable about both topics tan Richtard Hughes will ever be- and will prove it if the money is right- so how about it assface- care to ante up and go in front of an expert panel of judges?


    Can't calculate SI > CSI of things

    What does that even mean?

     
  • At 7:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard Hughes is admitting tat he is too stupid to understand the following:

    OK, moving on. In her point 3 she has a digital organism of 22 bytes. 22 bytes = 176 bits. That is 176 bits of information carrying capacity so depending on the specificity that will determine the amount of specified information.

    So that is how you do it- count the bits and check on the variability. If you have 500 bits but any arrangement can cause the same effect then it ain't specified.


    IOW it ain't just the length.

    If you are too stupid to understand that then you are too stupid to understand CSI, SI and science.

     
  • At 7:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    By RichTard's "logic" he is an ignorant fool for not answering my questions.

    MathGrrl is an ignorant fool for not answering my questions.

    OM is an ignorant fool- well all evotards are ignorant fools because they refuse to answer the simplest of questions.

    They cannot even demonstrate any understanding of the concepts.

    Thanks Rich- you did it again...

     
  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    MathGrrl is an ignorant fool for not answering my questions.

    Out of the two of you I'd agree that one of you was an ignorant fool.

     
  • At 8:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Out of the two of you I'd agree that one of you was an ignorant fool.

    Whined the ignorant piece of shit...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home