Trying this again ... Information ...

[Roy]

Or GIGO (Garbage In; Garbage Out)

"Life is like a sewer - what you get out of it depends on what you put into it" - Hen3ry

[Jorge]

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?

My interest remains in getting questions that I may use to enhance my work, not on educating you on Dembski's work. Regardless, I'll answer your questions ...

One reference: Dembski specifically discusses FNs and FPs on pages 139-144 of his book Intelligent Design, 1999, InterVarsity Press. Dembski discusses false positives, not that he thinks that his criterion produce them. I can see where my English may have misled you (note that I had put 'false positives' in parenthesis). Sorry about that. See more below ...

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.

Same comment as I just made earlier applies. For what you seek here, the same reference pages 132-139. For a more formal, statistically-rigorous distinction between specification and fabrication see Dembski's The Design Inference, Chapter 5, 1998.

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

I was merely answering your question as directly as possible. A person may not have sufficient background and thus fail to recognize a specification even though it is there. This would create a false negative (failure to detect). But when CSI is detected (i.e., no false negative occurred) then no CSI 'conservation' problems emerge. Dembski repeatedly argues (successfully) that his criterion avoids false positives, i.e., when CSI is detected it does so correctly every time. This is all discussed in the references that I've provided.

I trust you can continue on your own your education on Dembski's work from this point forward. I'm still looking for questions on information / information theory that I may use to enhance my own work. Thank you.

Jorge

[TheLurch]

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.

Information means lots of different things.

There's quantum information, which actually helps dictate the behavior of everything from individual particles to white dwarfs and neutron stars.
There's biological information, which i asked about (since it's what i know best).
There's information from the Shannon perspective.
There's information in things like the light from distant stars, which tells us their age, size, existence of planets, etc.
We can store information in the pattern of charges or magnetic clusters.
Text like this contains multiple layers of information - there's the words themselves, the meaning of the sentences, and often some subtext.

I could probably go on, but i think that's enough to make my point. Information is not a specific term. I have no idea which types of information your ideas would apply to, and you haven't told me, or anyone else in this thread. Without knowing the scope of the discussion, there's not much i can say.

What i can say is it's highly ironic you complain about "pointing the finger at the other guy", when you don't define the discussion, and then complain that nobody here is contributing to it. Pot, kettle, something about dark coloration...

[Jorge]

Information means lots of different things.

There's quantum information, which actually helps dictate the behavior of everything from individual particles to white dwarfs and neutron stars.
There's biological information, which i asked about (since it's what i know best).
There's information from the Shannon perspective.
There's information in things like the light from distant stars, which tells us their age, size, existence of planets, etc.
We can store information in the pattern of charges or magnetic clusters.
Text like this contains multiple layers of information - there's the words themselves, the meaning of the sentences, and often some subtext.

I could probably go on, but i think that's enough to make my point. Information is not a specific term. I have no idea which types of information your ideas would apply to, and you haven't told me, or anyone else in this thread. Without knowing the scope of the discussion, there's not much i can say.

What i can say is it's highly ironic you complain about "pointing the finger at the other guy", when you don't define the discussion, and then complain that nobody here is contributing to it. Pot, kettle, something about dark coloration...

If you were genuinely interested in learning something, behaving as a serious scholar INSTEAD OF allowing your rabid ideological or personal biases cloud your brain then you would recognize that your post (above) contains the germ of a good line of questions. There are indeed many 'meanings' of the term 'information'. Are they all valid? If not, why not?

FYI, information IS a specific term but only within a limited application/situation. To wit: when you are asked to provide "information" on an application, you certainly know exactly what's being asked - there is no ambiguity, right? It's when borders are crossed that problems emerge and this happens all the time.

My work was to seek the 'essence' of information - the attribute(s) universally present in any type and manifestation of information. I'm not ready to go into it yet but I wanted general questions to test whether or not I had achieved certain goals.

Lastly, I certainly did "define the discussion" (as you say I did not) by specifically requesting questions on the field of information.

As I just finished explaining, you had a good question embedded among your post - your rabid bias simply doesn't allow you to think straight. Just for the hell of it, take a look at my responses to rossum and do a comparison with posts by, say, Beagle Boy, O-Mudd, R06, Roy and others. Quite a contrast, yes?

I've realized that I'm asking the wrong crowd, that's all.

Jorge

[rogue06]

You are a typical representative of the rabid fanatics that inhabit and preach your ideological position: you are intellectually dishonest, employ the tactic of selective memory and selective evidence, and never - absolutely never! - concede anything for your opposition. Those characteristics make it very easy to spot your type.

Oh the

Iron E.jpg

[rossum]

My interest remains in getting questions that I may use to enhance my work

In that case, your work needs to be very clear on the differences between a specification and a fabrication. Mistaking a fabrication for a specification may result in assigning a positive value of CSI where the real value is zero: "That face in the clouds sure looks designed to me." Similarly, missing the existence of a specification may result in the assigning of zero CSI where the actual CSI is non-zero.

If the initially measured value of CSI is not reliable then obviously any further arguments based on zero, or non-zero, CSI become moot. As with much of science, accurate measurement is crucial to all that follows.

rossum

[oxmixmudd]

My interest remains in getting questions that I may use to enhance my work, not on educating you on Dembski's work.

So - Jorge gets what he's been asking for, someone that will actually take him somewhat seriously and take the risk of submitting themselves to his 'offer' to answer questsion. And what does he do - the very FIRST sentence of his (Jorge's) second post in the sequence is an insult ...

Regardless, I'll answer your questions ...

Oh the arrogance of the man! He's like your favorite Jerk you love to hate or something.

Jorge - you deserve every joke, every crass word sent your way. You wouldn't know how to be gracious if your life depended on it. And what makes it all the worse is you are clueless in terms of just how ignorant you are on these subjects where you prance around like some sort of genius that deserves some sort of recognition.

But THAT is something you are unlikely to ever get. Recognition that is. Except perhaps for being the afore mentioned lower class individual.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I trust you can continue on your own your education on Dembski's work from this point forward. I'm still looking for questions on information / information theory that I may use to enhance my own work. Thank you.

Jorge

What makes you think that anyone would be interested in 'helping' you with your work, given your uniformly rude and abyssmal behavior?! Not going to happen.

Just like any recognition for your 'work'.

The only legacy you'll leave Jorge is that of a rude and petty little man.

But - of course - you could care less.

I wonder if there is any way to arrange a meeting between you and the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future?

Not that in your case it would do any good.


Jim

[TheLurch]

If you were genuinely interested in learning something, behaving as a serious scholar INSTEAD OF allowing your rabid ideological or personal biases cloud your brain then you would recognize that your post (above) contains the germ of a good line of questions. There are indeed many 'meanings' of the term 'information'. Are they all valid? If not, why not?

FYI, information IS a specific term but only within a limited application/situation. To wit: when you are asked to provide "information" on an application, you certainly know exactly what's being asked - there is no ambiguity, right? It's when borders are crossed that problems emerge and this happens all the time.

My work was to seek the 'essence' of information - the attribute(s) universally present in any type and manifestation of information. I'm not ready to go into it yet but I wanted general questions to test whether or not I had achieved certain goals.

Ok, what features do quantum information and biological information share? How do you generate a single framework that encompasses them both?

[gladiatrix]

Hypothesis confirmed. Clucky is still angry at everyone because he got caught using a fake web-bought PhD to pimp his book.

Of course the honest thing to do would have been to not brag about a phony degree in the first place but you can bet that thought never crossed his teeny YEC mind.

Hey, stupid, hadn't I booted you off this thread a while back?

Why ban someone from a thread (IMO it looks like the banner might be afraid of what the "bannee" might say)?

But then, just like the rest of your kind, rules and laws don't apply to you do they.

A loaded question that presumes as FACT that people not belly-crawling in slobbering, abject F-E-A-R of your alleged God/bribed with post-mortem "promises" of that old Heaven-cookie, can't possibly be moral/decent human beings (and that's a particular "flavor" of this alleged entity, too, so many "versions" under the Christian "umbrella").

IOW, you do have statistics showing that theists (Christians in particular) are the most law-abiding/moral human beings (few in prison, little divorce, rarely have abortions, etc.), in sharp contrast to atheists/other non-believers, right, Jorge?

As for the rest of your lying, dishonest post, it is ignored as it should be.

What did HMS_Beagle lie about?

WOW - a new Atheist joins TWeb.
She's come to the right place, for sure -- lots of support for Atheists here!
Being this was her first post, it was very informative about her character.
Therefore, she and most TWebbers will get along great, of that I am sure.

Why thank you, I find comparison to knowledgeable posters of integrity such as rogue06, oxmixmudd, Roy and other evolution-supporters here to quite flattering.

What did Beagle Boy lie about?

Try MOST THINGS.

If it's "MOST THINGS", then it should be no trouble for you to point out one of these alleged porkies, given there's such a "target rich environment" ("MOST THINGS"), according to you.

Failure to substantiate your allegation would mean that you are the one actually guilty of what you are so busy accusing HMS Beagle of doing and should perhaps take the advice of that book (well, your particular interpretation of cherry-picked sections of it that is) you worship and arrange for an emergency PLANKectomy.

Now go away, impetuous child.

ROFL! A childish attempt at condescending intimidation...do get over yourself, but since you've got NOTHING to back up that accusations you've vomited up against HMS Beagle or actually put forward any argument supporting your claims, this kind of blustering is "as good as it gets" from someone without the "goods" (evidence).

That you seem to have nothing of value to offer was exemplified weeks ago as far as I'm concerned by just these two exchanges HERE and HERE.

Of course you could easily disprove my suspicion that you've got nothing but "God^[1]~POOFED!^[2]~it! by giving us the scientific details (evidence supporting them?) on the mechanism that generated your "information" leading to the alleged "functional complex information" (define?) with an example of any biological system that actually exhibits your description (let's see the color of your science).

----
^[1] This is a very specific "flavor" (the right-wing YEC version) of the Christian God, one of many "flavors" that Christians have been viciously savaging each other over for the better part of two thousand years with no consensus on what "flavor" is RC ("religiously correct", assumes there's one to be had) which itself further assumes without evidence that there is such an entity ("flavor" notwithstanding) to begin with.

^[2] According to the Bible, that "mechanism" would be by "speaking" the universe/everything into existence (a mere 6000 years ago in YEC/ID-verse) no less, . Now that's nothing but spell-casting, albeit on a grand scale, which is why I suspect there are passages in the Bible calling for the murder of "witches", no would-be "competitors" allowed by the self-declared "jealous" God or Grand Magician by any other name. But then the "crimes" of witchcraft (most often used to terrorize women) and blasphemy are obvious, self-serving charges ginned up by theists as a pretext/"excuse" to sadistically butcher any nay-sayers without compunction or conscience, usually done as publicly as possible, thus serving as weapons of terror to frighten any other would-be naysayers into silence (sit down, shut up or ELSE!).

[Jorge]

In that case, your work needs to be very clear on the differences between a specification and a fabrication. Mistaking a fabrication for a specification may result in assigning a positive value of CSI where the real value is zero: "That face in the clouds sure looks designed to me." Similarly, missing the existence of a specification may result in the assigning of zero CSI where the actual CSI is non-zero.

If the initially measured value of CSI is not reliable then obviously any further arguments based on zero, or non-zero, CSI become moot. As with much of science, accurate measurement is crucial to all that follows.

rossum

My work isn't based on CSI. In my work CSI is nothing more than one of many interpretations of global information (my term). As such, the specification-fabrication problem isn't a serious a problem for my work.

The initially-measured value of CSI is reliable within a well-defined global context.

As for "accurate measurements within science" -- in general I wouldn't agree with your claim. Something may be measured very accurately and very precisely yet the measurement may be based on the wrong scientific paradigm.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Ok, what features do quantum information and biological information share? How do you generate a single framework that encompasses them both?

Now THOSE are very good questions -- questions that my work do answer (I assure you of this).

See, that's what I was looking for; more specifically, I was hoping to get questions on information that my work did NOT answer so that I could "fix it" if possible. So far I haven't received any 'show-stopper' questions.

If you can think of more good question, I'd love to see them.
Perhaps you'll have some that force me back to the drawing board.

As for the answers to your questions, I hope to be putting something out 'soon'.

Jorge

[Sparko]

Now THOSE are very good questions -- questions that my work do answer (I assure you of this).

See, that's what I was looking for; more specifically, I was hoping to get questions on information that my work did NOT answer so that I could "fix it" if possible. So far I haven't received any 'show-stopper' questions.

If you can think of more good question, I'd love to see them.
Perhaps you'll have some that force me back to the drawing board.

As for the answers to your questions, I hope to be putting something out 'soon'.

Jorge

Translation: I don't have a clue, but I will pretend I do and say I will answer it later. Whew.

[Jorge]

Why thank you, I find comparison to knowledgeable posters of integrity such as rogue06, oxmixmudd, Roy and other evolution-supporters here to quite flattering.

You appear unaware that "knowledgeable"-"integrity" and "evolution supporters" are mutually exclusive terms.

If it's "MOST THINGS", then it should be no trouble for you to point out one of these alleged porkies, given there's such a "target rich environment" ("MOST THINGS"), according to you.

Failure to substantiate your allegation would mean that you are the one actually guilty of what you are so busy accusing HMS Beagle of doing and should perhaps take the advice of that book (well, your particular interpretation of cherry-picked sections of it that is) you worship and arrange for an emergency PLANKectomy.

Listen, stupid, this is your second post here. A while back TWeb had a system crash in which over 14,000 (? - give or take) of my posts were lost. My point is that I have over 14 years (?) and 16,000 (?) posts of experience that more-than-amply support what I say about Beagle Boy or anyone else here on TWeb. You have 2 - count them, TWO - posts with "experience" measured in minutes. In other words, you are c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s of what you are talking about. Ergo, I will not waste any time supporting my claim to the likes of you.

ROFL! A childish attempt at condescending intimidation...do get over yourself, but since you've got NOTHING to back up that accusations you've vomited up against HMS Beagle or actually put forward any argument supporting your claims, this kind of blustering is "as good as it gets" from someone without the "goods" (evidence).

That you seem to have nothing of value to offer was exemplified weeks ago as far as I'm concerned by just these two exchanges HERE and HERE.

Of course you could easily disprove my suspicion that you've got nothing but "God^[1]~POOFED!^[2]~it! by giving us the scientific details (evidence supporting them?) on the mechanism that generated your "information" leading to the alleged "functional complex information" (define?) with an example of any biological system that actually exhibits your description (let's see the color of your science).

----
^[1] This is a very specific "flavor" (the right-wing YEC version) of the Christian God, one of many "flavors" that Christians have been viciously savaging each other over for the better part of two thousand years with no consensus on what "flavor" is RC ("religiously correct", assumes there's one to be had) which itself further assumes without evidence that there is such an entity ("flavor" notwithstanding) to begin with.

^[2] According to the Bible, that "mechanism" would be by "speaking" the universe/everything into existence (a mere 6000 years ago in YEC/ID-verse) no less, . Now that's nothing but spell-casting, albeit on a grand scale, which is why I suspect there are passages in the Bible calling for the murder of "witches", no would-be "competitors" allowed by the self-declared "jealous" God or Grand Magician by any other name. But then the "crimes" of witchcraft (most often used to terrorize women) and blasphemy are obvious, self-serving charges ginned up by theists as a pretext/"excuse" to sadistically butcher any nay-sayers without compunction or conscience, usually done as publicly as possible, thus serving as weapons of terror to frighten any other would-be naysayers into silence (sit down, shut up or ELSE!).

The rest of your (above) post is ignored and dismissed as it is obviously coming from an immature ignoramus. Believe or say as you wish - I cannot prevent that. Just know that you are less-than-ZERO to me. Now go back to sniffing Darwin's socks and Dawkin's underwear.

Jorge

[TheLurch]

Now THOSE are very good questions -- questions that my work do answer (I assure you of this).

So "ask me a question, and it will be answered by a promise to answer it later"? Don't you think that's a bit of a waste of my time?