[...]
>
>>SJ>No. Brian asked me to "provide some justification" *in terms of
>>information theory*. I cannot do this, and in any event I made no
>>claim about information theory. My original request was in terms
>>of biology:
>
>BH>Sorry, Steve, but this simply is not true. I never asked you to
>>justify your statement in terms of information theory. Here is my
>>original question:
>>
>>How would one define "information" in such a way that a random
>>process would not result in an increase in information? The only
>>objective definitions of information that I know of are those found
>>in information theory. These information measures are maximal for
>>random processes.
>
>SJ>Well, if Brian says that "The only objective definitions of
>information that I know of are those found in information theory",
>then if I don't "justify" my "statement in terms of information
>theory" then Brian can say that I have not "justified" it at all!
>
>BH>I'm merely asking for your definition and since turn about is fair
>>play I'm giving you my definition. And don't say that you gave
>>your definition as specified complexity. You didn't bring this up
>>till later.
>
>SJ>That's right. All along I undertood "information" as "specified
>complexity", so when Brian tried to define it as per "information
>theory", I clarified what I meant by it.
>
>BH>Specified complexity still hasn't been defined in any
>>objective way, perhaps the paper by Dembski will help. Hopefully
>>what I wrote in this post will clarify why I want an objective
>>definition. There is no way to evaluate claims about whether
>>specified complexity increases, decreases, remains constant etc.
>>unless we can measure it.
>
SJ>I do not know that "Specified complexity still hasn't been defined in
>any objective way", but I await with interest the reception of "the
>paper by Dembski".
>
>BH>Anyway, back to my request. You made a similar complaint
>>earlier that I was asking for a definition of information based on
>>information theory. I tried to clarify that this was not my
>>intention by writing:
>>
>>You misunderstood my request. You are free to define information
>>any way you wish [except, of course, something like "that quantity
>>which does not increase due to a random mutation" ]. I merely
>>mentioned that the only objective definitions I know about come
>>from information theory (classical or algorithmic).
>
>SJ>See above. Brian says that I am "free to define information any way"
>I "wish" but he quickly adds that "the only objective definitions I
>know about come from information theory". This effectively means
>that I cannot "define information" any way" I "wish"!
>
No it doesn't, unless of course my knowledge is so vast
that I know about every objective definition of information
that there is. This is, of course, absurd. Actually, I found
a new one just recently that I believe to be objective,
namely Murray Gell-Mann's effective complexity. At first
sight this one seems to bear at least some resemblence
to Dembski's complex specified information.
But there are many definitions of information that have
been proposed. Many I've rejected because they are not
objective. C.H. Bennett's measure, logical depth, I reject
primarily because it yields absurd (to me) conclusions such
as that a beer can has an information content comparable
to the society that made it ;-).
>BH>Tell me Steve, how can I make it any clearer?
>
>SJ>It's perfectly "clear" that Brian is setting up the rules so that he
>can win the game. I do not accept his rules and I am not going to
>play his game. It may be that "information" in the sense of
>"meaning" cannot be made "objective" in the sense that Brian demands.
>But that does not make it any the less real.
Who said it was any less real?
>It just shows the
>limitations of "information theory" which is based on scientific
>materialism.
Huh?
>SJ>The same "objective" problem applies to consciousness
>which is more real to each individual than any amount of "objective"
>science.
>
Of course.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"Should I refuse a good dinner simply because I
do not understand the process of digestion?"
-- Oliver Heaviside