[...]
BH:===
>>Its really hard for me to find
>>too much fault with Bradley on this though. Awhile back I spent a lot
>>of time looking through the literature to find examples of this type of
>>thing. What one finds is a whole host of very prominent folks (including
>>Manfred Eigen) who have tried to use information theory to separate
>>messages with "meaningful information" from random sequences.
>
Glenn:==
>That may be. But I think Yockey is correct that meaning is external and
>different from information. I have used my abysmal knowledge of Chinese to
>illustrate things like this. The string:
>
>"Ru gua ni you sheng dan de hua, name zai gua qu ni yao si le"
>
>has no meaning in English. But in Mandarin it means
>
>"If you have a birthday then in the future you will die"
>
>The information content is probably different yet the meaning is the same.
>>From this, one can conclude that meaning is not equal to information. At least
>information in the technical sense.
Yes, I agree with you here. Yockey has another humorous play involving
the word gift meaning poison in German:
"... a German-speaking visitor to the United States might have all
his suspicions about America confirmed when he finds there is a _Gift_
shop in every airport, hotel and shopping center."
I guess my point was that the mistake is common and is made by the
best. It might be useful to point out exactly what the mistake is. It is
not a mistake to say proteins are complex and it is not a mistake to
say that their function requires specificity. In other words, "specified
complexity" characterizes proteins pretty well. The mistake is in trying
to tie "specified complexity" to information as defined in information
theory.
As we've seen, words get defined in different ways by different authors.
Isn't it acceptable to define information as "specified complexity" provided
one is careful to make this definition clear? Sure, this is OK, but in
doing so one can no longer appeal to any results from information
theory. Not only this, in defining information as "specified complexity"
one sacrifices one of the primary advantages of the information theory
definition of information, one sacrifices the benefits associated with
having an objective, intrinsic measure. It is interesting that Horgan,
in his review of complexology in SciAm, says the opposite, that the failure
of information theory to address meaning is a weakness. This is like saying
that a thermometer is flawed because it can only tell you that the temperature
is 100 deg., it can't tell you if that's good or bad. It can't tell you if you burned
the cookies or not ;-).
[...]
Glenn:==
>I am going to make a prediction. The sad thing and important thing is that the
>ID folks have latched onto Yockey like a leach to the leg. (sorry for the bad
>visual image) and they expect that information theory will prove a designer.
>Yet they have no concept that information theory specifically excludes this
>conclusion. Many in the laity will be persuaded that information theory does
>prove a designer, because most of them don't understand information theory and
>so can't judge for themselves.
>
I suppose I have to agree here. I remember some time ago (in a "discussion"
with Steve Jones about the origin of life) asking how it is that Yockey could
present such devastating arguments against the various scenarios for the
origin of life and yet never entertain the notion of intelligent design. If I
remember right this was also in the context of Steve's attempt to argue
from the false alternative. Its been so long that I can't recall if I got around
to giving the answer (one can imagine what Steve's answer was :). The
real answer is along the lines Glenn is discussing here. To jump to the
conclusion of intelligent design would be inconsistent with one of the most
fundamental conclusions of his book.
Your prediction also reminded me of something I believe I've already
mentioned here. In Facts & Faith there is an advertisement for
Yockey's book which contains a summary statement:
"It demonstrates in a rigorous fashion the impossibility of life arising
by strictly natural processes" -- from F&F
This is something Yockey's book certainly does not do in any fashion.
One thing that troubled me about this is that the same issue contains
a short article written by Yockey. This makes it fairly likely that Yockey
has a copy of that issue and has read the little blurb containing the
above. I have to wonder what Yockey thought as he read it.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University