What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited)

If no algorithm can generate it, then it's non-computable. That's the definition of non-computable. But the main problem is, your claim creates problems for the very existence of CSI.We don't know whether humans run algorithms in their brains (most AI researchers believe so but some thinkers, such as Roger Penrose disagree).This means there is NOTHING we can definitely point to as CSI. Nothing created by humans can be called CSI. Nothing created by any 'intelligent designer' can be called CSI - unless you can show they did it non-algorithmically.Tracking back, I believe the mistake in your reasoning is when you say that algorithms can't create CSI. They can. The NFL theorems, curiously, do not say this, no matter how many times you claim that they do. Here's a quote from the Wolpert paper.

quote:

---

Again, this is an assertion.

---

Nobody ever observed it, and there is no such capacity. So it's a fact.

quote:

---

In your example, the random search of your house turns up other information you can use to build prior information for your next search in someone else's house.

---

NO YOU CAN'T! That's the point! Did the other guy lose the keys in the EXACT same place in his house as you did in yours? Are your houses identical? No, ofcourse not!

quote:

---

For example, you notice that nothing is sitting on the ceiling, that reduces the number of places you need to search next time.

---

Does that count for other houses with lost keys? No, obviously it doesn't.

quote:

---

You can also say, well, since I found them on the bedside table last time, rather than going through all my previous steps, I'll start there next time.

---

And will they be there 100%? No, they won't!

quote:

---

Even in a new house, that's a good place to start as it assumes people are generally the same.

---

That's called prior information.

quote:

---

All of this is without using prior nowledge the first time, and using the new information the second time.

---

Which doesn't help you in other case at all.

quote:

---

If the situation is similar, the exact conditions don't matter, the process can still work faster than random.

---

Well that's the point! IF IT IS SIMILAR! But what if it's not!? Than you will fail! And that means no algorithm works better than any other, or a random search, without prior information.

quote:

---

If no algorithm can generate it, then it's non-computable.

---

No algorithm can generate anything without prior information.

quote:

---

That's the definition of non-computable. But the main problem is, your claim creates problems for the very existence of CSI.

---

No you misunderstood what I was sying. I was saying that it is computable, but you won't wind up with more information than you inputed at the start. No algorithm can do that.

quote:

---

We don't know whether humans run algorithms in their brains (most AI researchers believe so but some thinkers, such as Roger Penrose disagree).

---

I disagree also. Since we can think. Our mind is not material like a computer.

quote:

---

This means there is NOTHING we can definitely point to as CSI. Nothing created by humans can be called CSI. Nothing created by any 'intelligent designer' can be called CSI - unless you can show they did it non-algorithmically.

---

Yes it can since it's more than 400 bits. The whole of observable universe could not have created more than 400 bits since it's origin. If we were just a part of this material universe, with no non-material mind, we wouldn't be able to produce more than 500 bits. But we are!

quote:

---

Tracking back, I believe the mistake in your reasoning is when you say that algorithms can't create CSI. They can.

---

No, they can't. Please provide where does it say they can.

quote:

---

The NFL theorems, curiously, do not say this, no matter how many times you claim that they do. Here's a quote from the Wolpert paper.

---

That is but one of houndreds of lines in his paper. Which just proves my point that one algorithm will work well on one landscape, and not so good on another on average, given that it has prior knowledge about the problem.

Argument from ignorance/Negative Proof Fallacy. Why should I provide evidence for something you are trying to prove??First you need to adequately define CSI... I assume by 400 bits you are talking about DNA? Please elaborate and educate the CSI illiterate masses. Again define CSI. If I showed you two caves that were identical and one was human made and one created by the forces of nature would this not negate your CSI argument? Neither does the morphology and physiology of biological life intrinsically 'need' to fit a certain standard. Biological life much like other natural occurring phenomena is shaped by the environmental conditions in which it exists. Forces such as electromagnetic radiation and chemical agents can effect the composition of the genome and ultimately the shapes (morphology) of organisms. I apologize, I just get frustrated when people throw around terms without defining them or understanding them, themselves. When you deal with people like SO and the like, sometimes we mistakenly throw you under the same proverbial bus. It is a human vice which I fall prone to as well. Agreed but if you cannot make the distinction between chaos and non-chaos are we sure there really is a substantial difference between the two? That is the whole purpose I post on this board, not just for you but for all of us. Hmm, did you just make up that definition or where did you draw it from. This is unlike any definition of the word 'chaos' I have seen. What do you mean by linear measurements? Can we not predict to a degree the amount of erosion that will occur in a river on a yearly basis? Is that a 'chaotic thing'? So what specifically falls into your category of 'chaotic things'?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

How do you know? Is it possible, that if you lost your keys on your nightside table, and a lot of other people put their keys on the nightside table, that maybe this other person put their keys on their nightside table?Even if they didn't, the knowledge you gained from your first search, can help you in your second.ie, no keys on the ceiling, no keys in places to small for keys to fit. If you're truly operating from no prior knowledge in the first case, you would have to consider those possibilities the first time, but could rule them out the second. It does if you assume the conditions are similar, and until you find they aren't, this is a good assumption to make. They don't need to be there 100%, they just need to be there more often than not. No, it's not information, it's an assumption. I generally assume things are similar to previous experiences until I am shown a place where they differ. It obviously does. You're assuming its different. Why? If it's similar, it will help, if it's not, it will generate new information for the next time. In fact, this is how all information we have is generated, by taking one experience and applying it to the next. The first experience is almost always random (just watch a kid) and patterns emerge out of it as the kid learns.

Thanks for explaining your thinking on this. I think you are misinterpreting the theorems. The theorems apply when considering a search across the space of ALL possible cost functions. They don't rule out more effective algorithms across narrower scopes than this.See this..... Christensen and Oppacher (2001)Secondly, you're wrong to say that random search can create no information. The search for your keys, for example, would create information about the location of your keys even if it were purely random.In fact, randomness (as you know) is a key element in many evolutionary algorithms. It's not something we want to get rid of

I don't know much about the CSI concept. Does it have this non-material / non algorithmic element built into the definition of it?

quote:

---

How do you know? Is it possible, that if you lost your keys on your nightside table, and a lot of other people put their keys on the nightside table, that maybe this other person put their keys on their nightside table?

---

It's possible but it isn't probable! And that's what we are talking about probabilities.

quote:

---

Even if they didn't, the knowledge you gained from your first search, can help you in your second.

---

For which house? Some other unknown house? No it can't.

quote:

---

ie, no keys on the ceiling, no keys in places to small for keys to fit. If you're truly operating from no prior knowledge in the first case, you would have to consider those possibilities the first time, but could rule them out the second.

---

Again, that information is gained by the search. So for the second search you already have some prior information. But if you used that method the first time on the second house you would not do any better.

quote:

---

It does if you assume the conditions are similar, and until you find they aren't, this is a good assumption to make.

---

Well that's an assumption that's not always going to work for you.

quote:

---

They don't need to be there 100%, they just need to be there more often than not.

---

Yes, they do, because than your algorithm is not better than some other in all cases.

quote:

---

No, it's not information, it's an assumption. I generally assume things are similar to previous experiences until I am shown a place where they differ.

---

Yes it is. If you modify the second search with some information and than do the search, it's called prior information.

quote:

---

It obviously does.

---

Nope.

quote:

---

You're assuming its different. Why?

---

Are you honestly telling me that ALL houses in the world are identical!?

quote:

---

If it's similar, it will help, if it's not, it will generate new information for the next time.

---

But if it isn't similr it won't help, that's the point.

quote:

---

In fact, this is how all information we have is generated, by taking one experience and applying it to the next. The first experience is almost always random (just watch a kid) and patterns emerge out of it as the kid learns.

---

Yes, becasue he extracts knowledge from his trial. But if you give him a totally unrelated problem, his method won't help him at all.

quote:

---

Thanks for explaining your thinking on this. I think you are misinterpreting the theorems. The theorems apply when considering a search across the space of ALL possible cost functions. They don't rule out more effective algorithms across narrower scopes than this.

---

That's obvious. But that means that this algorithm has been optimized for that kind of search.

quote:

---

Secondly, you're wrong to say that random search can create no information. The search for your keys, for example, would create information about the location of your keys even if it were purely random.

​

In fact, randomness (as you know) is a key element in many evolutionary algorithms. It's not something we want to get rid of

---

It didn't create information, you had to create it by finding the key. If you actually found you keys on first try every single time randomly by serching, now that would be creating information from nothing. The fact itself that you are searching means you have no information, so you have to create it by searching.If you knew where the keys were, you wouldn't be searching in the first place, right?

quote:

---

I don't know much about the CSI concept. Does it have this non-material / non algorithmic element built into the definition of it?

---

No, it doesn't. I explained it a while back.

But you know what? Improbable things happen all the time, and the probability often depends on how one looks at it. Until you can provide a mathematical formula for this probability, then apply the formula to something specific, then show why the probability becomes zero (which it must, otherwise you're admitting it is possible for the thing to happen) you have nothing. Yes it can. In fact, it often does. Show me how it can't. If you see that no keys are found on your celing, why would you look on the ceiling in another house? After looking at many houses, and finding that no keys are ever found on the celings in any house, doesn't that make it less probable that keys will be found on the celings of the next house? Doesn't this information ceom from the random first process, refined through subsequent iterations? Yes. So information is generated through the random search, go on... Yes, so the first random search generated information you could apply to the second house. How can you say you wouldn't do any better? You can eliminate search options because of the first search, thus making it take less time to exhaust all possibilities in the second. It doesn't have to always work, it only has to work more often than not. And then when I find a new situation for which it doesn't work, the final solution gets factored into my new "search information." Why do you think it has to be better in all cases? It only has to be better in most for it to be a worthwhile algorithm to use. There may be a better way in one instance, and in fact, we can often come up with better ways to design things in nature than the way they turned out because the process isn't perfect. That's my point. Yes, but that prior information was generated by the first random search, and then gets incorporated. Thus, information can arise out of a random process. Once you get information, all you have to do is add to it. No, but they're similar enough for a process created in one to be a benefit in another.All car models are slightly different, but I don't have to learn how to drive each type of car individually. I can learn on one, and apply the knowledge from that to the others. No, in that case, it won't help in that one instance, but after that one instance, you've learned something more, and expanded the circumstances under which your process will now work. It adapts to a new environment you might say. Right, so he starts at square one again, and starts with nothing, then builds a process for all experiences that are similar to this new one. Given enough time, you'll experience enough different sets of circumstances to have a process in your repertoire to deal with just about any subsequent experiences.

A few questions about the nylon mutation(s), just out of curiousity:Do we know the exact sequence of mutations that took place?What did the current system evolve from?Has anyone run the changes through the explanatory filter to see if they exhibit specified complexity?In what way could the new system be considered "specified?" (ie, conform to an independently given pattern?)Also, what definition of information is everyone using? Is a sequence of heads and tails information?

---

Beatus vir qui suffert tentationem
Quoniqm cum probates fuerit accipient coronam vitae

Think this through. I'm saying that the search creates the information - clearly it does, because we know something at the end we didn't at the beginning. This meets the Shannon definition of information (decrease in uncertainty of a receiver). The same information is created no matter how we get there. You almost acknowledge that in your paragraph above - see last sentence.

So, using your definition of information, flipping a coin 100 times would create information, since it would reduce our uncertainty about the result of those 100 flips?

---

Beatus vir qui suffert tentationem
Quoniqm cum probates fuerit accipient coronam vitae

Hi Percy,I have to go with Smooth Operator on this one. In its uncleaved form LexA does repress the activity of certain DNA repair mechanisms. When it is cleaved these mechanisms become activated. However, along with DNA repair elements the cleavage also allows the expression/activation of a set of polymerases which are highly error prone, which is probably why Smooth Operator focuses on LexA cleavage as a mutation inducing mechanism instead.You and Devil's advocate are right about the rates of mutation in the LexA mutant and therefore presumably in the presence of a LexA cleavage blocking drug, the authors (Cirz et al., 2005) state that ... So 104 fold less frequently is pretty substantial and certainly sufficient for the authors to state ... Of course in the long term evolution can afford to be inefficient but perhaps not in the face of a sudden environmental challenge such as the introduction of antibiotics.TTFN,WK

Whoa! That seemed a little weird, so I've read up on this a bit more, and I think I can make sense out of it if more details are added. Tell me if I've got this straight.Uncleaved LexA represses the SOS response, the name given to a DNA repair system that operates after replication begins. Because uncleaved LexA is present in normal bacteria, the SOS repair response is repressed under most circumstances. It doesn't matter that this repair system is repressed when the bacteria isn't replicating, since there's nothing to repair.Normal bacteria also possess the RecA protein, but it only plays a significant role during replication when (among other things) it cleaves the LexA repressor, thus enabling the SOS repair response, just when it is needed.Some antibiotics work by inducing DNA damage in bacteria. Cause enough damage and the bacteria dies. But antibiotics can also somehow stimulate the RecA protein to cleave the LexA repressor, even though the bacteria is not replicating. The SOS repair response is no longer repressed, and it goes to work repairing the DNA damage caused by the antibiotic. This process of simultaneous destruction and repair produces many mutations. The possibility of all mutations become more likely, including those with resistance-conferring ability.But no matter how close I've come to grasping the details, I don't think it changes the argument I was directing at Smooth Operator, which is what I think you were saying next. I wasn't trying to get to this level of detail because Smooth Operator's argument fails for much more basic reasons. Resistance-conferring mutations are selected from out of the random mutations that occur while under stress from antibiotics and are not specifically induced.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add minor clarification.