Trying this again ... Information ...

[TheLurch]

came here expecting mature, intelligent input... something I could use to enhance my work.

Intelligent input, pretty much by definition, requires some understanding of your work. You've been unwilling to help anybody understand it, as far as i can see, so you've gotten nothing.

Put differently: to get something out, you've got to put something in.

[One Bad Pig]

"Bullying"? You truly are a PIG, aren't you -- very appropriate name you've given yourself.
No, piggy, I just can't stand the extreme level of dishonesty that Beagle Boy constantly displays.
Try any harder and you'll be competing with him. Is that your goal?

By the way, do you have anything worthwhile to contribute here?
Or do you come out of your sty just to fling insults and mud?

Jorge

Looks like you've got a terminal case of projection here. You might want to get that checked out.

[rogue06]

Intelligent input, pretty much by definition, requires some understanding of your work. You've been unwilling to help anybody understand it, as far as i can see, so you've gotten nothing.

Put differently: to get something out, you've got to put something in.

Or GIGO (Garbage In; Garbage Out)

[Jorge]

Intelligent input, pretty much by definition, requires some understanding of your work. You've been unwilling to help anybody understand it, as far as i can see, so you've gotten nothing.

Put differently: to get something out, you've got to put something in.

Yeah, I get it - typical liberal dishonesty ............ Spelling it out ...
When cornered or when all else fails, point the finger at the OTHER guy!!!

Good job, Lurch! Take your well-earned bow.

I asked for questions on information / information theory.
Nothing was required unless you got nothing in the old skull.
Stop trying to fabricate excuses, Lurch; assume responsibility for once.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Looks like you've got a terminal case of projection here. You might want to get that checked out.

Here piggy-piggy-piggy ......... here ya go!

Jorge

[One Bad Pig]

Here piggy-piggy-piggy ......... here ya go!

Jorge

You 'n' Tiggy are like peas in a pod.

[oxmixmudd]

***********************************************

Bah, humbug! This thread was a bust!
I came here expecting mature, intelligent input... something I could use to enhance my work.
With but one or two exceptions, I got the usual TWebber childish, idiotic nonsense.
Let that be a lesson to me!

Jorge

You have gotten some mature input, but reacted to it immaturely. And the fact is, you rarely provide mature input or output, and so you simply reap what you sow.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah, I get it - typical liberal dishonesty ............ Spelling it out ...
When cornered or when all else fails, point the finger at the OTHER guy!!!

Good job, Lurch! Take your well-earned bow.

I asked for questions on information / information theory.
Nothing was required unless you got nothing in the old skull.
Stop trying to fabricate excuses, Lurch; assume responsibility for once.

Jorge

You asked for questions in an empty context and set yourself as the source of answers. For you to have gotten anything meaningful, you would have needed to provide a context like, say, some summary of your heretofore yet unrevealed contributions to the field, or shown some sort of amicable or humble purpose associated with the request.

Jim

[Leonhard]

I came here expecting mature, intelligent input... something I could use to enhance my work.

You've already said you're not here to discuss, but just to 'rattle the cages'. You've posted zero parts of your work. You've done nothing but insult people here with inanities, and then act offended when people respond in kind.

You're either outright lying, or completely delusional.

[rossum]

On returning to TWeb after a long break, I thought I might try to get this thread somewhat back on track. In the OP Jorge asked:

Do you have any questions on the general subject of 'information'?
Specific questions?

I do have questions about Dembski's Complex Specified information: CSI. I understand 'Complex' -- more than 500 bits. I understand 'Information' -- Dembski seems to mostly use a probability measure based on Shannon. It is the 'Specified' part I have an issue with.

Consider the text string: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, ..." comprising the full text of Dickens' 'A Tale of Two Cities'. It is Information and it is Complex, including the whole novel. But is it Specified?

If I use the specification: "The text of a Dickens novel" then the text string meets the specification and it is CSI. If I use a different specification: "The text of a Shakespeare play" then the same text string does not meet the specification and so contains zero CSI. By changing the specification I can change the value of CSI present in the text string between some positive value and zero, depending on whether or not the text string meets the specification. The text string does not change, only the specification.

This gives me three questions:

Q1: How do I objectively, not subjectively, decide what is, and what is not, a valid specification?

Q2: How do I avoid the 'Texas sharpshooter' problem and avoid painting the target/specification round where the bullet hit?

Q3: How does Dembski's 'Conservation of Information' claim sit with the fact that CSI can be either created or destroyed simply by changing the specification?

rossum

[Jorge]

You 'n' Tiggy are like peas in a pod.

Hmmm ... lessee ... Tiggy rhymes with Piggy, right? Yeah, that's right!
You have far, FAR more in common with Tiggy and it's not just because your names rhyme.

Jorge

[Jorge]

You have gotten some mature input, but reacted to it immaturely. And the fact is, you rarely provide mature input or output, and so you simply reap what you sow.

Jim

B-A-L-O-N-E-Y !!!

I'm not even going to bother looking before asserting that any mature, serious,
respectful input I received was answered in like manner. Your dishonesty
continues as usual, O-Mudd.

Jorge

[Jorge]

On returning to TWeb after a long break, I thought I might try to get this thread somewhat back on track. In the OP Jorge asked:



I do have questions about Dembski's Complex Specified information: CSI. I understand 'Complex' -- more than 500 bits. I understand 'Information' -- Dembski seems to mostly use a probability measure based on Shannon. It is the 'Specified' part I have an issue with.

Consider the text string: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, ..." comprising the full text of Dickens' 'A Tale of Two Cities'. It is Information and it is Complex, including the whole novel. But is it Specified?

If I use the specification: "The text of a Dickens novel" then the text string meets the specification and it is CSI. If I use a different specification: "The text of a Shakespeare play" then the same text string does not meet the specification and so contains zero CSI. By changing the specification I can change the value of CSI present in the text string between some positive value and zero, depending on whether or not the text string meets the specification. The text string does not change, only the specification.

This gives me three questions:

Q1: How do I objectively, not subjectively, decide what is, and what is not, a valid specification?

Q2: How do I avoid the 'Texas sharpshooter' problem and avoid painting the target/specification round where the bullet hit?

Q3: How does Dembski's 'Conservation of Information' claim sit with the fact that CSI can be either created or destroyed simply by changing the specification?

rossum

Finally - Hallelujah - a worthwhile post!!!

I'll ignore the Clintonites on TWeb and address your questions, rossum .............

I do have questions about Dembski's Complex Specified information: CSI. I understand 'Complex' -- more than 500 bits. I understand 'Information' -- Dembski seems to mostly use a probability measure based on Shannon. It is the 'Specified' part I have an issue with.

Yes, that is pretty much what Dembski does.

Consider the text string: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, ..." comprising the full text of Dickens' 'A Tale of Two Cities'. It is Information and it is Complex, including the whole novel. But is it Specified?

It is indeed specified by definition of what "specified" means. Dembski's book No Free Lunch is an excellent source for a detailed (and lengthy) presentation/discussion of why that is the case.

If I use the specification: "The text of a Dickens novel" then the text string meets the specification and it is CSI. If I use a different specification: "The text of a Shakespeare play" then the same text string does not meet the specification and so contains zero CSI. By changing the specification I can change the value of CSI present in the text string between some positive value and zero, depending on whether or not the text string meets the specification. The text string does not change, only the specification.

I mostly agree with you - certainly on the essential part.

This gives me three questions:

Q1: How do I objectively, not subjectively, decide what is, and what is not, a valid specification?

Q2: How do I avoid the 'Texas sharpshooter' problem and avoid painting the target/specification round where the bullet hit?

Q3: How does Dembski's 'Conservation of Information' claim sit with the fact that CSI can be either created or destroyed simply by changing the specification?

ANSWERS:

1. Without going into my own work, Dembski addresses the problem of false negatives (and positives) and acknowledges that these may occur. What you ask here is essentially about the problem of false negatives. This doesn't destroy his theory.

I developed what I did (my theory) in part to overcome difficulties such as these. In my work information is present in all cases, it's the manifestation of the information that varies. CSI is just a special case of my 'information'.

2. Short answer: by making certain of not crossing the boundary between a specification and a fabrication. The details of this may be simple or quite elaborate depending on the situation.

3. Answered in 1. False negatives (failure to detect) are acknowledged. However, when CSI is detected then CSI Conservation holds every time. Going on memory, Dembski discusses this in No Free Lunch. Again, this doesn't destroy his theory, it is just a limitation. My own work doesn't encounter this problem.

Jorge

[rossum]

ANSWERS:

1. Without going into my own work, Dembski addresses the problem of false negatives (and positives) and acknowledges that these may occur. What you ask here is essentially about the problem of false negatives. This doesn't destroy his theory.

IIRC Dembski agreed that there could be false negatives -- a Jackson Pollock painting perhaps. I am not sure that Dembski agreed that there could be false positives. Do you have a reference for Dembski saying this?

2. Short answer: by making certain of not crossing the boundary between a specification and a fabrication. The details of this may be simple or quite elaborate depending on the situation.

Do you have objective definitions of a 'specification' and 'fabrication' that will work in most (or ideally all) circumstances? Giving a few example is useful, but there needs to be something with a wider applicability. As I showed, the calculated CSI value can change drastically if the specification is changed. Hence the difference between a specification and a fabrication is crucial.

3. Answered in 1. False negatives (failure to detect) are acknowledged. However, when CSI is detected then CSI Conservation holds every time. Going on memory, Dembski discusses this in No Free Lunch. Again, this doesn't destroy his theory, it is just a limitation. My own work doesn't encounter this problem.

Your second sentence seems to contradict your "false ... positives" from answer 1. If CSI is supposedly detected in a false positive, then it seems to me that CSI conservation might not hold. Dembski's argument on conservation requires design, whereas a false positive would not actually be an example of design. That is why it is a false positive.

rossum

[One Bad Pig]

Hmmm ... lessee ... Tiggy rhymes with Piggy, right? Yeah, that's right!
You have far, FAR more in common with Tiggy and it's not just because your names rhyme.

Jorge

Still doing a bang-up job of projection, I see.