The great information debate

[Jack_www]

As fas as I know, here no the earth humans are the only ones that are intelligent. I guess you could say the same things about animals with a central nerves system have a limited ammount of intelligence, but no were near that of a human. For a person to comunicate and form words that have meaning, one needs intelligence. This post I am writting now, it it not intelligent, but there is an intelligent source behind it. To understand what I am writting you need intelligence for that. The same is true for an algorithm. It has an intelligent scource behind it, and you need intelligence to decern if the output made be the algorithm has any meaning.

[MrBaggins]

stop using irrelevant arguements and answer the question.

You are just mindlessly repeating the same point.

ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION. Is the algorithm intelligent?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Let us assume that your position is correct and RNA was able to be formed formed self reproducing molecules. The question is could anything usefull come about by natural means with no outside influence?

That isn't the question since that isn't the case. There is an outside influence. Its called the environment. Perhaps you have noticed it upon occasion. If you don't fit it well things can get unpleasant.

A code would be produced by random and lets just assume the RNA can make protiens too. Very likely that the first protien produced would be useless, although it could possibly form a protien that is usefull but the odds for this are very high.

That would depend on rather a lot of things. We are talking about the first life. It has no competition except copies of itself untill there are succesfull mutations. Even a few amino acids attached to the main body could improve its ability to grab onto the molecules it needs to reproduce.

In the world of the blind the one eyed man is king.

Lets say the surival of this early form of RNA depends on it making a usefull protien, and if the protien is useless, it will die or barely survive. Lets just say it died.

Well then there is nothing to talk about anymore unless that are other copies of the original molecule or other self-reproducing molecules unrelated to the first.

So this would seem to me that more than one RNA mocule had to form on its own, because the error rate would be so high it would take a lot of them using random method of selecting the genic code that would produce usefull protiens, ones it needed to form new cell and live. This to me seems to have great odds against such a possibilty.

One produces two produce four. And so on. Its the first one that can reproduce that is likely to take over the Earth depending on the odds of another kind forming. If the odds of a self reproducing molecule forming of many different kinds are good then there diffent varieties of them. It might be that different conditions would favor different particular kinds of molecules forming. Indeed its likely that it would be the case for simpler molecules. Still its seems to me that the odds are would make it unlikely for more than one kind to form by accident in any short period of time. Hence the one that forms first has a good chance to spread before anything else can get going.

Anther possibilty I would urge all to look at, is that the first cell was influenced by outside srouce that was intelligent.

Its possible but the question here on this thread is whether it is possible the other way. Where did the outside source come from after all?

[MrBaggins]

Personally, Ethered, I believe that you are using leaps of conception that are just too big for these creationists to understand.

The point is... of course, that a computer is able to operate independent of humans, and we are testing its (the algorithms) ability to generate data later perceived as information here... its the algorithm that makes the data.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MrBaggins

You demonstrate your utter stupidity.

STOP THAT

No more of that please.

The idea is to discuss it not to start flames.

I allready have that skill and I don't need more practice.

Besides Ming might decide that I finally stepped over the line instead of just edged up to it.

There will trash recepticales at the ends of the aisles. Thank you for your cooperation.

[MrBaggins]

I didn't say he was stupid... just demonstrating it... thats not name calling

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Personally, Ethered, I believe that you are using leaps of conception that are just too big for these creationists to understand.

They took a long time for me to understand. I am no genius. It takes time for things to percolate through the brain. People sometimes get the idea in minute, sometime days, sometimes never I suppose.

I remember when I was taking a course in symbolic logic and went to class with a sinus infection. The darn thing lowered my IQ something awfull. I could deal with things I allready knew but figuring out new things was really hard.

I think the Professor was explaining the details of Reducio Ad Absurdum. In any case I was struggling with whatever the concept was. After ten or fifteen minutes it finally clicked. Then the break came because it was a long night class. During the break the concept evaporated. I decided to go home instead of return after the break. I had understood it clearly for a moment and then it vanished. Waste of time to stay for the second half of the class.

The point is patience is needed with new concepts. Especially when people don't like the conclusions the concepts may lead to.

My mother refused to read Stephen J. Gould's Wonderfull Life because she thought it might induce some degree of agnosticism in her. She had a degree in Physical Anthropology and was nowhere near a creationist. Seemed to weird to me that she felt that way.

The point is... of course, that a computer is able to operate independent of humans, and we are testing its (the algorithms) ability to generate data later perceived as information here... its the algorithm that makes the data.

The algorithim you used was dumb at best. Not enough complexity to even remotely pass for inteligent.

It definitly wouldn't pass the Turing test. Some programs have come very close lately for narrow fields. There are programs that have a degree of inteligence.

The are other animals on earth with inteligence. Not just chimps either. Even cockroachs have some degree of inteligence. Jack is mistaking self-awareness for inteligence I suspect. Only humans and chimps are clearly self-aware. I suppose gorrillas are too. Koko seems as bright as any chimp.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
stop using irrelevant arguements and answer the question.

You are just mindlessly repeating the same point.

ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION. Is the algorithm intelligent?

I have already said that the algorithm is not intelligent, there you happy now? I thougt you asked other questions too and I was trying to answer them too. Sorry for the missunderstanding.

[Logical Realist]

Simplification

To make this issue a bit more simplistic, I would like to ask the creationists why they think information implies intellect? By what means did they come to this conclusion?

To me it seems they base that argument off observation, all common day experiences regarding information derive from seeing human's design an object or think about things. They know what a human's design looks like, so when they see such a design later on, or similar piece of information they rightly conclude that the object is of intelligent origins.

But notice that such reasoning when applied to DNA is quite backwards and unwarranted. One establishes human design of an object because one has already seen human's make similar objects in the past.

One however has never seen DNA made by anything nor humans make anything like DNA. In fact every object an intelligence tends to define seems to have some sort of beneficial utility function; one is hard pressed to see any utility in DNA that would benefit any intelligent organism.

There reasoning is thus backwards because instead of going:

"Well there is a piece of uncreated information around, so it's reasonable to conclude that not all information needs to be designed"

they reason

"well since there is information around without a designer, something unseen must have designed them."

So the premise:

All information must be designed.

Is used to prove the conclusion that: DNA must have a designer.

But what was the first premise based on? Human design, which obviously does not apply to DNA. Hence the argument fails. There is really no link between human design and DNA other than the fact that both are information.

Which simply begs the question of how one can say all information was designed (or why human design applies to DNA) when there is no obvious designer for DNA.

In essence then they prove that all information must be designed by starting off with that premise.

Why must all information be designed? Because human design can be compared to DNA.

Why can human design be applied to DNA? Because human design and DNA are both creations. (Or all information is designed).

It is question begging plain and simple.

[Ethelred]

Re: Simplification

Originally posted by Logical Realist
To make this issue a bit more simplistic, I would like to ask the creationists why they think information implies intellect? By what means did they come to this conclusion?

Its to support their religious beliefs. Mostly anyway.

One however has never seen DNA made by anything nor humans make anything like DNA.

Actually humans do make DNA in the labs. Thats part of genetic engineering. Sometimes its a probe like anti-sense DNA sometimes its a variation of something natural.

they reason

"well since there is information around without a designer, something unseen must have designed them."

Thats exactly what is being claimed.

So the premise:

All information must be designed.

Is used to prove the conclusion that: DNA must have a designer.

You got it. Its not circular anyway. It has a bad premise instead.

But what was the first premise based on?

A lack of understanding about what data is and where it comes from.

Which simply begs the question of how one can say all information was designed (or why human design applies to DNA) when there is no obvious designer for DNA.

There is no need for anything to be obvious.

In essence then they prove that all information must be designed by starting off with that premise.

Not quite. They are claiming that complex data that is used to do anything must have a source for the information. They then claim the source must be a inteligence because they can't concieve of another source or more likely they do not want to think that another source can do the job because this the second to last stand for a religious view versus a purely scientific view of the Universe. The last stand is the beginning of the Universe.

It is question begging plain and simple.

Close to it anyway. I can see a sort difference in this one. You have to look hard at it to see the real errors. The basic source of this discussion is a book by a mathematician named Dembski. He has tried to prove that DNA must have an inteligent source. He appears to have glossed over the last step and mostly just claimed that Design=intelect. He also stuck the design label on mostly to support his thesis. Its more of a label of convienence than anything real.

What he really proved (not quite though as he made some highly questionable assertions in his efforts) was that DNA is not a statistical accident. Not quite the same as showing that is designed. It clear to nearly anyone that DNA is not a mere accident. Many genes are way to long to have formed by some sort of statistical anomaly. Most are too long I suppose. Dembski simply didn't notice that the environment can be the source of the data. Didn't want to really.

[Jack_www]

At least we can all agree that DNA has a lot of information in it. It has the blueprints so to speak of what ever living thing you are looking at. Weather it be a house fly or a human. I would assume that most of us would accept this as fact as well, that the information in DNA could not be the result of blind chance. Anther thing is that all living things on earth have something in common, they all have DNA and use it to make protiens just like all other life forms, except virus though, I dont really Know if they are alive. It depends on what defention you use for "alive."

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I have already said that the algorithm is not intelligent, there you happy now?

Chemical laws are every bit as non-intelligent as that algorithm, which is why an intelligent source was not responsible for the creation of DNA (or any molecule, for that matter; if you argue that intelligence was required for the creation of DNA then to be consistent you'd need to also argue that intelligence was required for the creation of water, or coal, or hydrogen). If you're going to say that an intelligent source created chemistry then you would thereby concede the scientific argument and revert to a metaphysical argument--you would be admitting to evolution, and would instead be arguing that God made evolution (there wouldn't be "intelligent design" involved with making life, there would only be "intelligent design" involved with setting physical laws at the beginning of the universe).

The follow-up question would then be "If God made everything, then who made God," which of course you won't be able to rationally answer. Regardless, this thread is about the science of information, not the metaphysics of information, and so if you want to hem and haw around the question of metaphysics (rather than hem and haw around the question of science) then it really ought to be done on another thread. Lincoln wants this one to stay on topic.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
At least we can all agree that DNA has a lot of information in it.

We've derived quite a bit of information from DNA. However, since everybody and their mother has argued this entire time that information requires an intelligent interpreter, DNA does not contain information until a sentient creature actually examines it. Until that time, DNA is nothing more than a molecule--it contains no more information than a molecule of water without something sentient examining it.

I would assume that most of us would accept this as fact as well, that the information in DNA could not be the result of blind chance.

Why would you make this assumption, when nobody you are arguing against has ever made a statement even close to this? Don't assume, you'll make an ass out of u and me.

Anther thing is that all living things on earth have something in common, they all have DNA and use it to make protiens just like all other life forms, except virus though, I dont really Know if they are alive. It depends on what defention you use for "alive."

Apparently you missed the tail end of the last thread, where I pointed out that prions (protein fragments, not even full proteins) are capable of replication given the correct environment (specifically, one rich in organic molecules, like an organism or some good old primordial soup).

[Jack_www]

I did not miss your comment about prions. Before this I never knew about prions, so I looked it up and found this article on the Scientific American wesite. It does not say it is a life form, but an infectous agent that is a result of a genic mutation. You can read it yourself, and it is not that long.

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/medicine/medicine14.html

[Logical Realist]

Circularity

Well like I was saying, the conception that information must be designed is based on circular reasoning.

What proves there is a God? DNA information.

What proves that DNA has to be created? The premise that it must come from an intelligent source i.e. God.

They think information must come from a designer, even though there is no observed designer for DNA, why? Because it must come from a designer, so even if a designer is not seen the designer must be there. Because He just must be. (They cannot concieve of it being another way because....well information implies designer automatically.)

They then try to use this "information challenge" to prove the world was designed. Which was the very question....in regards to the world at large and DNA.

Some also seem to be using a false dilema type argument: "Creation or blind chance"..... when it could simply be causality.