Existence of God

CSI is a term used in the ID community. Joralex can be forgiven for thinking that those folks do know what they are talking about. However, I have yet to see it defined in a way that can be used. We'll have to see if a definition appears here now.Do NOT hold your breath.

You may consider yourself asked then Joralex. What is CSI?It appears to be something that is quantifiable, if so please show how it is calculated.Since it isn't your concept I'm sure you have the source for it.Since I've already read some sources on this and wasn't able to figure out what CSI actually is I'm asking you to explain it. It seems to be central enough to your argument to deserve a separate thread.

A small note, I didn't say you or others didn't know what they are talking about. I did however imply that your sources might not since when I have attempted to read some of the material it wasn't apparant to me that they did. It may be that the quality of the explanation or my ability to absorb it is a problem. It may require some questions and answers on my part to help me sort it out.So wiht that in mind, my questions start: This suggests that "complexity" and "Shannon information" are identical. Is that true? I have to ask since there are separate attempts to define a quantifiable concept of "complexity". This is felt to be needed since the Shannon information content of a random string is very high but it is not intuitively felt to be what we are talking about in terms of "complexity".If "complex" is something more than Shannon information will you clearly distinguish the two?"Specified" As I read you example the sonnet is "specified" because it can be read using a set of rules that are "specified" separatly from the particular ink pattern.Is it true then that something may have "speicificity" quantified? How would I calculate the "specificity" of an particular pattern of words or letters? How about a particular pattern of ink which may or may not be close to letter forms?Can you know carry this over to where it applies to evolution? Does it? Or does it only apply to abiogenesis?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-26-2003]

I did have some further questions about "CSI". Are you going to explain the details?
Added by edit: Sorry I have not read ahead to your next post.
I will add to this if I had further questions.Actually I really do want to understand this in detail. Not because I think it is right. If I think it is wrong it is necessary for me to understand it well before I can come to that conclusion.You suggest that the base pair sequence in DNA is CSI. But how specified is it? Since, other than identical twins, no two humans have the same sequence and no two may ever have the same sequence it seems that it is not exactly specified. How do I determine the amout of specification?The ID folk use, I think, some probability arguements. However, those must consider the fact that living things are NOT 100% specified. How specfied are they, using a number between 0% and 100%?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-25-2003]

Ok, I will have to get to that book.However, you will notice that most of us here are still willing to supply some part of the material in things we reference.In particular I would like to see the "expanded" definition of information that is being used. Since it is clear that Shannon information can be added by evolutionary processes.It should be possible in this space to supply the definition of complexity being used too.

Edited to remove duplication[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-26-2003]

You say "from Shannon's work on communitcation" "complexity measures" may be transformed from probability measures. However, I don't have any reference to Shannon talking about complexity. Could you give the formulat for "complexity" then.You say that Dembski has kept "with all accepted protocols of complexity and information theory". Does this mean that PaulK is wrong and that Dembski is using Shannon information but perhaps with a mathematical transformation applied? Could you show this transformation? This would demonstrate conclusively that PaulK is wrong when he says "It is not the same as Shannon information at all.
".Could you discuss the specification of DNA? All I have ever seen on the web discussion this seems to think that a specific sequence is the only one to be considered. I mentioned earlier that I believe this to be wrong in that many, many DNA sequences are acceptable outcomes.Once we have the definition of information, complexity and specificity that you are using it should be much clearer what CSI is. Thank you.(PS it does seem it will be hard to get the book, our city library doesn't have it, I will try the University later in the week )

Joralex, could we carry this on in the threads I have created for the purpose?

Could you make it clearer where you think Joralex as committed his errors? And maybe in the threads on the topic of CSI that I have set up to try to make them easier to find in the future?

If I understand what you are saying:The CSI argument relies on saying something is too improbable to have happened without some intervention from a "designer". However, then no one is capable of arriving at a calculation of the probabilities involved?They can't mean that! Can they? Perhaps Joralex will explain what is really meant.

That does happen, of course, we don't all get things the first time. But you can "help that". Sometimes it takes a rewording of the answer or smaller steps to help get from point A to point B.It seems to me too that there are some questions that haven't been answered at all. If we post those with a clear a working as possible will you then point to where you have answered them or clarify what the answers are?Added:
In my own case I have asked some follow on questions about CSI and haven't yet received an answer.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-27-2003]

While you're around, I still don't know what CSI is. I have answers to some of my questions from those you disagree with and not from you. Does that mean you will let their answers stand?