Active Information
-
Active information is what controls evolutionary and genetic algorithms so they find solutions to the problems there were designed to solve. It is what makes them successful search heuristics. It is was proves that those programs do not simulate nor mimic natural selection or unguided evolution as they are not active searches.
With respect to biology the active information would be akin to or exactly like Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues" and Shapiro's "natural genetic engineering", with that being intelligently designed into all organisms.
Active information is what controls evolutionary and genetic algorithms so they find solutions to the problems there were designed to solve. It is what makes them successful search heuristics. It is was proves that those programs do not simulate nor mimic natural selection or unguided evolution as they are not active searches.
With respect to biology the active information would be akin to or exactly like Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues" and Shapiro's "natural genetic engineering", with that being intelligently designed into all organisms.
posted by Joe G @ 12:51 PM
54 Comments:
At 10:50 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
How do we tell active from 'non active'?
At 11:11 AM,
Joe G said…
Non-active doesn't do anything. Hence the name.
At 11:32 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
So the test is?
At 11:35 AM,
Joe G said…
If it does something it is active, duh. If it is actively involved in the change, then it is active information.
Thank you for admitting tat you are ignorant of the concept.
At 11:46 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
When you get flustered you type "tat".
Can you operationalize the test?
At 12:01 PM,
Joe G said…
No, dumbass, when I type fast I type tat.
GAs operational the test, duh. Try a GA without a goal and see what happens.
At 12:10 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You type too fast for your capabilities when you're flustered.
That's not what "operationalize" means, Joe. You should ask a scientist.
At 12:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie, cupcake, your ignorance, while amusing, means nothing.
At 12:17 PM,
Joe G said…
And Richie, evolutionism cannot be operationalized. It has nothing and that is why you can't answer any questions about it.
At 12:19 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Yeah, change the subject whilst still using words you don't understand. Well done Joe!
At 12:21 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie, dipshit, the paper I linked to in the OP does as you request.
Are you really that fucking stupid? I just wanted to see if your position had something and obviously it does not.
At 12:27 PM,
Joe G said…
And BTW, asshole. "operationalize" also means "to make operational". That means my response was OK. YOU failed to specify what you were talking about, as usual.
At 12:28 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Oh really? Describe in your own words.
For for a bit more detail than "If it does something it is active, duh. If it is actively involved in the change, then it is active information." please.
At 12:38 PM,
Joe G said…
Oh really- read the paper and if you have any specific questions ask them.
But just remember if your position had something then you would just present it and be done with it. that you can't just proves that you are an incapable loser.
At 1:07 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So you don't understand it, Joe. Figures.
1. Joe links to a paper
2. Joe describes it as "If it does something it is active, duh. If it is actively involved in the change, then it is active information."
3. Joe point to the paper for further enlightenment.
Don't ever play poker, Joe. They'll take your money.
At 1:42 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Richie, don't ever try to be a lawyer or investigator, as you are too ignorant to do either.
The test of active information are evolutionary and genetic algorithms that ACTIVELY search for solutions to given problems. This is contrary to an "algorithm" that isn't a search and is passive.
The problem is evos don't seem to be able to grasp the meanings of words.
How do we tell active from passive, Richie? If you don't know then you have no place in a discussion.
At 1:45 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Active things are actively active!
From that makers of "Ticks and melons".
At 1:51 PM,
Joe G said…
Active things are actively active!
I am sure that you think that is all there is.
Richie thinks that no one knows the difference between active and passive. What kind of ignorant cupcake are you, Richie?
From that makers of "Ticks and melons".
I can prove my claim. You will always have nothing but your drool.
At 1:58 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe, sweetheart. This is *your* thread on active information. *Your* chance to 'educated' the world on it. So far we have:
"If it does something it is active, duh. If it is actively involved in the change, then it is active information."
and
"Oh really- read the paper and if you have any specific questions ask them."
A reasonable inference is you have no clue what the paper means.
At 2:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie, you are the asshole who posted "How do we tell active from 'non active'?" It should be active from passive and the answer is in the definitions of the words.
Not only that what I wrote in the OP should be sufficient. So, a reasonable inference is that you are an ignorant asswipe.
So stuff it already.
At 2:13 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
No wonder you came last in that library thing!
Here's a paper. The definitions of the words are what they mean!
Your 3 readers must be enlightened at this point, Joe.
At 2:15 PM,
Joe G said…
No wonder you are an ignorant asshole. Can't read (so Richie isn't one of my readers). Can't think. And can only spew belligerent nonsense.
Strange that my 3 readers check in from many different IPs hundreds of times a day.
At 2:18 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
I could tell from all the activity here.
Well, we've reached the end of your knowledge on 'active information' quite quickly. You tried. See you later, Chubs.
At 2:22 PM,
Joe G said…
I can tell from the blog counter. I has all the IPs and locations. It even says what posts they were reading.
And we had reached the end of your knowledge before you started.
How do we tell active from 'non active'?
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Nice own goal, cupcake.
My OP covers more than you can understand. I am OK with that.
At 2:23 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Ah. You're learning how the internet works. How precious! If only you'd understood google cache before you got caught lying, eh?
At 2:26 PM,
Joe G said…
I know how the internet works, Richie. I also know that someone can make it look like google cache has been changed.
However you are still an ignorant fuck who can't even address the OP.
At 2:28 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Sure you do chubs, sure you do. ;)
At 2:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, cupcake, you "argue" like a little baby. Is that the image you were shooting for? Really?
Nice job
At 2:50 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
I came to examine the depth of your knowledge of "Active Information" and it was as clueless and shallow as I thought it would be.
Idiot cheerleader chubs, claps along but doesn't understand.
At 3:23 PM,
Joe G said…
No, Richie, you came and choked as evidenced by your opening question.
You didn't realize the difference between active and passive has already been tested and defined. You din't realize that information already has a way to be measured and you didn't realize that "operationalize" has differing and relevant definitions.
You are so sad that you can't even address the OP. That would have been a start. Yet you haven't even demonstrated any understanding at all. And you try to project your ignorance onto me.
Typical, but still pathetic.
Start small, Richie- what part of the OP are you too stupid to understand?
At 3:29 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
The Lulz!
"Non-active doesn't do anything. Hence the name."
"If it does something it is active, duh. If it is actively involved in the change, then it is active information."
The insights! Mind.... BLOWN!
At 4:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm, those were in response to YOUR ignorance, cupcake. And guess what? They were not not of the OP.
Start small, Richie- what part of the OP are you too stupid to understand?
Richie is too stupid to even do that. What the fuck is wrong with you?
At 4:05 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Can't start much smaller than your post, Joe.
"With respect to biology the active information would be akin to or exactly like Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues" and Shapiro's "natural genetic engineering" "
How would you test this, experimentally? note the phrase "built-in". Does this entail a deterministic response?
At 4:10 PM,
Joe G said…
Imbecile- that is where I have been telling you to start. THAT is active information.
Nice of you to ignore the entire opening paragraph that set up what you are questioning.
We would test it via GAs, Richie. Releasing 100 identical finches in an isolated Pacific island group and having them evolve into several different species within 17 years is another test. Epigenetics, yet another test.
We could also observe our immune system's response to different pathogens.
At 4:11 PM,
Joe G said…
Start small, Richie- what part of the OP are you too stupid to understand?
Can't start much smaller than your post, Joe.
Obviously you are too stupid to have a discussion, Richie
At 4:15 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You're not very good at science are you?
You said: "... the active information would be akin to or exactly like Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues" "
What are the entailments of "built in responses"? Are they stochastic or deterministic?
At 4:36 PM,
Joe G said…
I am better at science than you will ever be, cupcake.
What are the entailments of "built in responses"?
That organisms can actively respond, genetically, to their environment. As opposed to organisms waiting on some genetic accident that may help.
Are they stochastic or deterministic?
Contingent.
At 4:39 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
The LULZ!
"That organisms can actively respond, genetically, to their environment. As opposed to organisms waiting on some genetic accident that may help."
Good - so this mechanism outside of RMNS - what is it? Also, 'actively', not 'passively', entails some monitoring apparatus. What is it?
Then:
"Contingent."
Does the same stimuli always get the same response?
At 5:04 PM,
Joe G said…
Good - so this mechanism outside of RMNS - what is it?
NS includes RM. And if you could demonstrate that NS could do something other than change allele frequency you would have something. However NS has proven to be impotent so here we are.
The mechanism is built-in responses, moron.
Also, 'actively', not 'passively', entails some monitoring apparatus. What is it?
The organism's programming.
Does the same stimuli always get the same response?
No. There is always more than one way to arrive at a solution.
Again if your position had something you wouldn't have to worry about any of this.
At 5:13 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So we have "The organism's programming" that "There is always more than one way to arrive at a solution".
(1) How do you know this?
(2) Where can we see this programming?
(3) Approximately how many solutions for every change are there?
(4) for (N) problems / opportunities that have (Y) solutions of a length of (K) bits, is the solution library size N.Y.K?
(5) How does the organism "actively" choose it's candidate solution
I have more but I want you to focus on these exciting developments.
At 5:36 PM,
Joe G said…
(1) How do you know this?
Experience, observations and then considering the alternatives.
(2) Where can we see this programming?
First you have to pull your head out of your ass.
I have more but I want you to focus on these exciting developments.
More childish belligerence? Oh the joy.
AGAIN, what do you have, Richie? 150+ years of bluffs, lies, misrepresentations and no progress.
How do you operational NS? HINT: You CAN'T
At 5:45 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
:D
Hilariously poor - but you almost tried to answer 2 of the questions.
" observations " - please share them.
*pop* - just pulled my head out of my ass, how can you give a real answer to "(2) Where can we see this programming?"
Thanks!
At 5:50 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie, cupcake, you are an ignoramus. Those questions are for future research programs to answer.
Yours had 150+ years and still can't answer anything nor can it be modeled. So unless you have something to support your position you need to shut up about ID and try to get educated with respect to science.
You can see the programming by observing a living cell in action. Transcription, translation, proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing, chaperones- what is the alternative explanation for that? It isn't physics and chemistry.
At 5:53 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Those questions are for future research programs to answer."
Ah. So you just made some shit up (conjecture).
Well, if you think they're true I'm sure you'll be researching them. But you don't, because you're an idiot YEC tard.
Look everyone. Look at the State of "ID SCIENCE".
BWAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
At 6:05 PM,
Joe G said…
Cowardly Richie refuses to discuss the evidence. Typical
So you just made some shit up (conjecture).
That is your uneducated opinion. And it is also a projection as that is all your position has- just make some shit up.
Nice own goal.
And thanks for proving that there isn't any state of the science of evolutionism.
At 6:08 PM,
Unknown said…
Joe's definition of "active" vindicates the 90%+ junk DNA claim. I wonder what his friends at UD (libellous Gordon Mullings and ban all dissenting views Arrington) think about this.
At 6:11 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe quickly tries to change the subject to "evolutionism" given his pathetic case (here's some shit he made up) for ID. This always happens when we talk specifics, you get your chubby ass handed to you.
At 6:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe's definition of "active" vindicates the 90%+ junk DNA claim.
How so? Much of it is transcribed- per ENCODE- and most likely the rest is used to store programs or future use.
At 6:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie, you ignorant cupcake. The OP links to an article about Active Information. It discusses unguided evolution. The whole point is active information vs natural selection.
Talk specifics? Your position doesn't have any and ID's specifics reside with the detection of Intelligent Design, dumbass.
At 6:27 PM,
Joe G said…
And BTW "built-in responses to environmental cues" is from 1997. It has since been supported by science.
I provided the evidence for cellular programming. That is more than Richie can do for evolutionism.
At 8:07 PM,
William Spearshake said…
"
How so? Much of it is transcribed- per ENCODE- and most likely the rest is used to store programs or future use."
Well, if these are all stored programs to take account of all eventiUalities, I guess that kills the idea of free will. Again, Gordom a Mullings and Barry Arrogant must be so proud of you.
At 8:46 PM,
Joe G said…
You are a terrible fisherman and a straw man maker.
Free will exists regardless of cellular programs that control genetic changes and cellular processes.
At 10:50 PM,
Unknown said…
Joe: "Free will exists regardless of cellular programs that control genetic changes and cellular processes."
How do you figure this? If the designer, who we are not allowed to ask questions about, can preload the genome of every animal, plant and bacteria on earth with instructions for every possible eventuality, are you seriously saying that he/she/it does not know everything that will happen? And if he/she/it does know everything that will happen, then nobody, no animal, no plant and no bacteria can have free will.
At 6:01 AM,
Joe G said…
How do you figure anything? Obviously you are brain dead.
If the designer, who we are not allowed to ask questions about,
Retard. ID is NOT about the designer. ID does NOT prevent people from asking about the designer. You are retarded.
can preload the genome of every animal, plant and bacteria on earth with instructions for every possible eventuality
Straw man. As I said you are a braid dead fuckwad.
Post a Comment
<< Home