interesting article- funny htough, in it he declares Shannon’s model is ‘irrelevent’ to the discussion of creation evolution debate’ (Haven’t read through it yet, but will be interesting to see why- it would seem to me that there can be no message with out an intelligent designer designing it for both sender and receiver).
I see Dawkins is tryign to use hte model to argue agaisnt the designer.
truman says [[To understand how much information transfer between sender and receiver is occurring it would seem that what is encoded in the message alone is only part of the picture. There are cases where the receiver benefits from a multiplier effect when the transmitted information is augmented with existing knowledge on the part of the receiver.]]
Very interesting point. I think though the macroevolutionst/naturalist will then try to use htis ‘multiplier effect’ to mean that message alone could have arisen naturally’ because when you factor in multiplier effects, the simple message being sent could have numerous meanings for the receiver, and ‘given enough numerous meanings, then somethign resembling metainfo’ ‘could have arisen’ over millions of years, especially given the fact that mistakes in the genome change the message. (This is why I was not 100% satisfied that the arguments for naturally occuring metainfo were sufficiently dispelled in my earlier posts in the William’s article posted by GGG)
Will postm ore later tonight regarding Truman’s article
Let me just add that I think though, at this point, that it would actually require an even greater predesigned metainfo on the part of cells, systems and ulitimately species as a whole in order to ‘intelligently’ receive, decode and use messages that contained a multiplier effect message- pointing more strongly to the need for, and utilization of, anticipation on the part of metainfo to decode not only hte message, but info outside of hte actual message. (Not sure ‘outside of’ is hte correct term- as additional message within the message itself would have to be forknown by hte receiver- however, this very point is where the macroevo will argue variety of decoding could have evovled in a by gosh by golly manner of accidental results- not sure this is a valid line of argument though). Will have to think htis through a bit more- if osmeone has somethign to add, I’d appreciate it- might spark another line of htought for one of us.
Which he can never seem to to do without using inappropriate teleological language, like comparing DNA to a computer code:‘In a message that is totally free of redundancy, after there’s been an error there is no means of reconstructing what was intended. Computer codes often incorporate deliberately redundant ‘parity bits’ to aid in error detection. DNA, too, has various error-correcting procedures which depend upon redundancy. ...'
Dawkins is apparently able to leap gigantic logical chasms in a single bound. Just once I would like to him explain exactly how he gets 'error-detection' and "error correction" where there is NO TARGET; "what was intended" where there is NO INTENT; and 'codes' where there is NO CODER.
He can't even discuss these things without using the language of design. If teleological language were profanity, every other word of Dawkins would be bleeped out.
Cordially,
Which he can never seem to to do without using inappropriate teleological language, like comparing DNA to a computer code:‘In a message that is totally free of redundancy, after there’s been an error there is no means of reconstructing what was intended. Computer codes often incorporate deliberately redundant ‘parity bits’ to aid in error detection. DNA, too, has various error-correcting procedures which depend upon redundancy. ...'
Dawkins is apparently able to leap gigantic logical chasms in a single bound. Just once I would like to him explain exactly how he gets 'error-detection' and "error correction" where there is NO TARGET; "what was intended" where there is NO INTENT; and 'codes' where there is NO CODER.
He can't even discuss these things without using the language of design. If teleological language were profanity, every other word of Dawkins would be bleeped out.
Cordially,