Comments on: Information and complexity http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/01/29/information-and-complexity/ A members' forum for discussion of selected books Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:09:04 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Randy Isaac http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/01/29/information-and-complexity/comment-page-2/#comment-110 Randy Isaac Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:52:58 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=68#comment-110 <p>BINGO! You got it! Randy</p> BINGO! You got it!
Randy

]]> By: Larry Parsons http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/01/29/information-and-complexity/comment-page-2/#comment-108 Larry Parsons Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:08:40 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=68#comment-108 Hi Randy,   Yes - it actually helps tremendously.  So by "observed",  you don't mean "real time observations as the agent is performing the task" but "study effects (such as artifacts) and date these effects (by whatever means).  Then, see what organisms (mythical characters need not apply) are also dated to the same time frame and in the same area as the effect and consider if there is any causal link." I'm I getting close to what you mean?   Larry Hi Randy,
 
Yes – it actually helps tremendously.  So by “observed”,  you don’t mean “real time observations as the agent is performing the task” but “study effects (such as artifacts) and date these effects (by whatever means).  Then, see what organisms (mythical characters need not apply) are also dated to the same time frame and in the same area as the effect and consider if there is any causal link.”
I’m I getting close to what you mean?
 
Larry

]]> By: Randy Isaac http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/01/29/information-and-complexity/comment-page-2/#comment-102 Randy Isaac Sat, 20 Feb 2010 05:47:22 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=68#comment-102 <p>Larry, I'm not sure how you draw these conclusions but I don't think any of that follows from what I said. I don't think that it is by definition that humans must play a role. I don't even know what that means. I presume you don't mean that non-humans are carrying out the science. And in your second paragraph I don't know why you think we can't scientifically study the level of intelligence of, say, early primate ancestors. Perhaps I caused the confusion by failing to be clear about what I mean by a "cause that cannot be observed." Maybe I should give some examples which might make it clearer than trying to give another definition. Examples of causal agents that CAN be observed: --dogs --chimps --hominids --dinosaurs --pre-Cambrian creatures --Big Bang --SuperNova explosions that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago --and the list goes on almost infinitely Examples of causal agents that CANNOT be observed: --unicorns --hobbits --orcs --ents --druids does that help? Randy </p> Larry, I’m not sure how you draw these conclusions but I don’t think any of that follows from what I said. I don’t think that it is by definition that humans must play a role. I don’t even know what that means. I presume you don’t mean that non-humans are carrying out the science. And in your second paragraph I don’t know why you think we can’t scientifically study the level of intelligence of, say, early primate ancestors.

Perhaps I caused the confusion by failing to be clear about what I mean by a “cause that cannot be observed.” Maybe I should give some examples which might make it clearer than trying to give another definition.

Examples of causal agents that CAN be observed:
–dogs
–chimps
–hominids
–dinosaurs
–pre-Cambrian creatures
–Big Bang
–SuperNova explosions that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago
–and the list goes on almost infinitely

Examples of causal agents that CANNOT be observed:
–unicorns
–hobbits
–orcs
–ents
–druids

does that help?

Randy

]]> By: Larry Parsons http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/01/29/information-and-complexity/comment-page-2/#comment-100 Larry Parsons Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:55:39 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=68#comment-100 Randy, Falsifying your assertion hinges on what you mean by "scientifically" - if you define it like you do "abstraction," where inherit in the definition humans MUST play a role, then the assertion is not falsifiable.  In fact, it is a faith position.   If there were an intelligent race of animals on the earth that predated humans, and that left artifacts that bore intelligence, it seems, by your stance, that one could not "scientifically" conclude that such a race of animals existed and possessed intelligence.  I'm not talking about "God" or any other non-physical being - I'm talking animals.  Am I wrong about this?   Larry Randy,
Falsifying your assertion hinges on what you mean by “scientifically” – if you define it like you do “abstraction,” where inherit in the definition humans MUST play a role, then the assertion is not falsifiable.  In fact, it is a faith position.
 
If there were an intelligent race of animals on the earth that predated humans, and that left artifacts that bore intelligence, it seems, by your stance, that one could not “scientifically” conclude that such a race of animals existed and possessed intelligence.  I’m not talking about “God” or any other non-physical being – I’m talking animals.  Am I wrong about this?
 
Larry

]]> By: Randy Isaac http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/01/29/information-and-complexity/comment-page-2/#comment-97 Randy Isaac Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:16:39 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=68#comment-97 <p>Larry, you can falsify that assertion by explaining logically how for an observed effect, one could scientifically verify its causal relationship to a cause than cannot be observed. Randy</p> Larry, you can falsify that assertion by explaining logically how for an observed effect, one could scientifically verify its causal relationship to a cause than cannot be observed.
Randy

]]> By: Larry Parsons http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/01/29/information-and-complexity/comment-page-2/#comment-92 Larry Parsons Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:23:42 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=68#comment-92 You're right - you didn't directly say what I had you assert - my bad.  I deduced that from the response you gave when the T. rex sculpture was dated at 70 million years old.   You do assert that the inference to intelligent agency is only valid if the intelligent agent can be studied - so in the case of a artifact such as a sculpture, the only such agent, in your mind, must be human.  My question is (pace Scriven, et.al.) what evidence could be adduced that would falsify this assertion (or is this assertion unfalsifiable)? Larry You’re right – you didn’t directly say what I had you assert – my bad.  I deduced that from the response you gave when the T. rex sculpture was dated at 70 million years old.
 
You do assert that the inference to intelligent agency is only valid if the intelligent agent can be studied – so in the case of a artifact such as a sculpture, the only such agent, in your mind, must be human.  My question is (pace Scriven, et.al.) what evidence could be adduced that would falsify this assertion (or is this assertion unfalsifiable)?
Larry

]]> By: Randy Isaac http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/01/29/information-and-complexity/comment-page-2/#comment-89 Randy Isaac Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:27:52 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=68#comment-89 <p>Larry, I'm puzzled. When did I ever assert that one "must also know when the object was created?" If I ever said that, I certainly retract it. I'm saying nothing more than what Meyer and Dembski say. One must be able to relate the artifact to independent patterns, in Dembski's terminology. Meyer cites Lyell, Darwin, and Scriven as saying one must show causal existence and causal adequacy. I use a little different terminology but it amounts to the same thing. One must be able to study independently the agents and the methodology that are able to make such an artifact. If you claim that the artifact was created by a chimpanzee, one can do studies with chimps to see whether or not they are indeed capable of such a design and if such chimps might have existed when the artifact was made. It is a scientific endeavor and can be falsified. If you claim that the artifact was created by a hobbit, how does one study their existence and capability? Reading Tolkein? It isn't a scientific quest. You claim that "the object alone is sufficient for me to infer intelligent agency as its source" but you couldn't even make that statement unless you knew something independently about intelligent sources. Randy Randy</p> Larry, I’m puzzled. When did I ever assert that one “must also know when the object was created?” If I ever said that, I certainly retract it.
I’m saying nothing more than what Meyer and Dembski say. One must be able to relate the artifact to independent patterns, in Dembski’s terminology. Meyer cites Lyell, Darwin, and Scriven as saying one must show causal existence and causal adequacy. I use a little different terminology but it amounts to the same thing. One must be able to study independently the agents and the methodology that are able to make such an artifact.

If you claim that the artifact was created by a chimpanzee, one can do studies with chimps to see whether or not they are indeed capable of such a design and if such chimps might have existed when the artifact was made. It is a scientific endeavor and can be falsified. If you claim that the artifact was created by a hobbit, how does one study their existence and capability? Reading Tolkein? It isn’t a scientific quest.

You claim that “the object alone is sufficient for me to infer intelligent agency as its source” but you couldn’t even make that statement unless you knew something independently about intelligent sources.

Randy

Randy

]]> By: Larry Parsons http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/01/29/information-and-complexity/comment-page-2/#comment-87 Larry Parsons Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:49:46 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=68#comment-87 NO WONDER YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND ME - I CAN'T TYPE!!  HERE IS WHAT I MEANT TO SAY WITHOUT THE MISSING WORDS I must not be making myself clear – let me try it another way. I assert that if you present to me an artifact, such as a sculpture of a familiar complex object (such as a the miniture T. rex), the object alone is sufficient for me to infer intelligent agency as its source. You assert that the artifact alone is insufficient to infer intelligent agency – you must also know when the object was created. My question that I wish for you to address is this: What type of evidence could be adduced that would falsify your assertion? Larry NO WONDER YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND ME – I CAN’T TYPE!!  HERE IS WHAT I MEANT TO SAY WITHOUT THE MISSING WORDS
I must not be making myself clear – let me try it another way.

I assert that if you present to me an artifact, such as a sculpture of a familiar complex object (such as a the miniture T. rex), the object alone is sufficient for me to infer intelligent agency as its source.

You assert that the artifact alone is insufficient to infer intelligent agency – you must also know when the object was created.

My question that I wish for you to address is this: What type of evidence could be adduced that would falsify your assertion?
Larry

]]> By: Larry Parsons http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/01/29/information-and-complexity/comment-page-1/#comment-86 Larry Parsons Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:44:28 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=68#comment-86 I must not be making myself clear - let try it another way.   I assert that if you present to me an artifact, such a sculpture of a familiar complex object (such a the miniture T. rex), the object alone is sufficient for me to infer intelligent agency as its source.   You assert that the artifact alone is insufficient to infer intelligent agency - you must also know when the object was created.   My question that I wish for you to address is this: What type of evidence could be adduced that would falsify your assertion? Larry I must not be making myself clear – let try it another way.
 
I assert that if you present to me an artifact, such a sculpture of a familiar complex object (such a the miniture T. rex), the object alone is sufficient for me to infer intelligent agency as its source.
 
You assert that the artifact alone is insufficient to infer intelligent agency – you must also know when the object was created.
 
My question that I wish for you to address is this: What type of evidence could be adduced that would falsify your assertion?
Larry

]]> By: Randy Isaac http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/01/29/information-and-complexity/comment-page-1/#comment-79 Randy Isaac Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:13:02 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=68#comment-79 <p>Maybe we need to be more rigorous in terminology. There's a difference between an inference to a design agent being scientific or not versus such an inference being considered likely or unlikely. To infer that a hominid designed the sculpture found in the Jurassic period is indeed scientific because the agent can be studied--but it will quickly be shown scientifically to be false, or at least extremely highly unlikely. If it's not scientific, you can't show it to be true or false. If it's in the realm of science, you can at least observe it and study it and then see whether it makes sense.</p> Maybe we need to be more rigorous in terminology. There’s a difference between an inference to a design agent being scientific or not versus such an inference being considered likely or unlikely. To infer that a hominid designed the sculpture found in the Jurassic period is indeed scientific because the agent can be studied–but it will quickly be shown scientifically to be false, or at least extremely highly unlikely. If it’s not scientific, you can’t show it to be true or false. If it’s in the realm of science, you can at least observe it and study it and then see whether it makes sense.

]]>