tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post6206884411841001507..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Stupid Philosopher Tricks: Thomas NagelUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-58829918230681842862017-02-23T07:36:51.900-05:002017-02-23T07:36:51.900-05:00Your response is completely incoherent.
There is ...Your response is completely incoherent.<br /><br />There is no theory of information in which "meaning" plays a role. It does not play a role in Shannon, or Kolmogorov, or any other theory of information that I know of. <br /><br />The claim "data is not information until it is given meaning" is just an assertion, which depends on the definition of the terms. It does not correspond to "information" in the way it is defined by mathematicians and scientists. If you have your own private definitions of terms, do not expect anyone else to pay attention.<br /><br /><i>So what? Everything the program does traces back to the programmer.</i><br /><br />The claim is vague and not necessarily true. For example, we could make a program that harvests truly random bits from radioactive decay, and then its behavior is <i>not</i> dependent only on the programmer. In any event, you continue to fail to observe the salient point, which is that the <i>information</i> the program harvests is not depending on the programmer. That is the essential point, which you continue to ignore.<br /><br /><i>And thankfully you are not my teacher</i><br /><br />One cannot teach someone who resolutely refuses to be taught. At my university, we have admissions standards.<br /><br />At this point you have exhausted both my time and your welcome. <br />Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-90204633762991202442017-02-22T22:33:16.380-05:002017-02-22T22:33:16.380-05:00Jeffrey- Shannon's theory is just a special ma...Jeffrey- Shannon's theory is just a special mathematical case. He didn't care about meaning because the equipment used to transmit and store information doesn't care about it. That has nothing to do with the fact that data is not information until it is given meaning.<br /><br /><i> A program harvesting weather data from the environment gains new information with each observation, information that could not possibly be predicted by the programmer</i><br /><br />So what? Everything the program does traces back to the programmer. That is just another fact that you cannot change. <br /><br />And thankfully you are not my teacherJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-68565722006786755012017-02-22T19:39:10.792-05:002017-02-22T19:39:10.792-05:00You clearly know nothing about information theory....You clearly know nothing about information theory. Information theory is specifically a theory that does <i>not</i> depend on meaning. It's not hard to educate yourself about this; just pick up any text on the subject, such as Li and Vitanyi. Meanwhile, I teach this material for a living. <br /><br />I have already pointed out specifically an example of information that <i>does not</i> "trace back" (whatever that means) to the programmer. A program harvesting weather data from the environment gains new information with each observation, information that could not possibly be predicted by the programmer. <br /><br />Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-84820647483717256512017-02-22T17:36:56.594-05:002017-02-22T17:36:56.594-05:00Umm, Jeffrey, data is not information until someon...Umm, Jeffrey, data is not information until someone gives it meaning. And whatever the program does it does so because it was intelligently designed to do so. Everything the program does traces back to the programmer. That is the mind in question.<br /><br />You continue to fail to make a point. Whether this is out of stupidity or dishonesty I cannot determine. You are just flailing awayJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-30278240262167568492017-02-22T14:08:13.678-05:002017-02-22T14:08:13.678-05:00You continue to fail to distinguish between the pr...You continue to fail to distinguish between the program and the bits the program harvests. Whether this is out of stupidity or dishonesty, I cannot determine.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-19883292045101585712017-02-22T09:55:37.599-05:002017-02-22T09:55:37.599-05:00A computer program can harvest bits from its envir...<i>A computer program can harvest bits from its environment and do so (for all practical purposes) endlessly. </i><br /><br />That is false. It will stop doing so when power is cut or the computer breaks down. And also the computer can harvest bits from its environment if and only if it was programmed to do so.<br /><br /><i>The information it harvests cannot be "traced back to the mind of the programmer", because it gains new information with each (for example) new weather observation.</i><br /><br />That doesn't follow. The program will always trace back to the mind of the programmer when the programmer was alive.<br /><br />If you refuse to address that simple point you are just babbling.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-2896520332772253612017-02-20T16:37:42.347-05:002017-02-20T16:37:42.347-05:00You continue to exhibit your misunderstanding of i...You continue to exhibit your misunderstanding of information theory.<br /><br />A computer program can harvest bits from its environment and do so (for all practical purposes) endlessly. The information it harvests cannot be "traced back to the mind of the programmer", because it gains new information with each (for example) new weather observation.<br /><br />An artifact like a Grecian urn cannot.<br /><br />If you refuse to address this basic point, you are just babbling.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-39495752190088566012017-02-20T14:00:15.039-05:002017-02-20T14:00:15.039-05:00The information the artifact provides does so desp...The information the artifact provides does so despite the fact the artisans are dead. Artifacts provide information about how they lived. The computer program is just another artifact. And everything it does is traced back to the mind of the programmer at the time of the last update. Do you understand reasoning at all? It doesn't seem like itJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-47806860255027418712017-02-20T13:18:05.616-05:002017-02-20T13:18:05.616-05:00Nope, they have the same information content as be...Nope, they have the same information content as before. This is not true of a program that continues to read the environment and processing it. Do you understand information theory at all? It doesn't seem like it.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-61538278150416364212017-02-20T08:00:24.412-05:002017-02-20T08:00:24.412-05:00Wow- artifacts continue to give us information abo...Wow- artifacts continue to give us information about the artisans even after they are dead and gone. The program traces it mind back to the programmer while he/ she was alive just as the artifacts doJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-80665600502149425412017-02-20T03:37:03.552-05:002017-02-20T03:37:03.552-05:00No, you don't even understand the point. The ...No, you don't even understand the point. The program continues to gain information, while the Toltec artifact doesn't. That's the difference. Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-28288656531639030102017-02-19T20:54:35.508-05:002017-02-19T20:54:35.508-05:00The programmer was very much alive when the progra...The programmer was very much alive when the program was written. The program traces back to that mind. Just like the Pyramids of Giza trace back to those designers and builders- when they were alive. <br /><br />Indiana Jones- "This artifact is from the Toltec civilization."<br /><br />Jeff- "The Toltec are all dead and dead people don't make artifacts."Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-91467530412870486182017-02-19T19:15:53.874-05:002017-02-19T19:15:53.874-05:00Yes, I disagree. For example, suppose the program ...Yes, I disagree. For example, suppose the program is written by a person who later dies; yet it continues to collect information. Then it makes no sense at all to say that the computer deduces it is raining and gains information through the mind of a dead person.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-47774175679701922102017-02-19T18:00:10.525-05:002017-02-19T18:00:10.525-05:00Hi Jeffrey, I was responding to what you posted:
...Hi Jeffrey, I was responding to what you posted:<br /><br /><i>If a computer deduces that it is raining, that gives it information. No mind involved, unless you want to admit that a computer could be a mind (fine with me). You don't even have a definition of "mind".</i><br /><br />The mind involved is that of the programmer. Or do you disagree?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-53340731447314032442017-02-19T17:48:29.402-05:002017-02-19T17:48:29.402-05:00And your deduction "traces back" to the ...And your deduction "traces back" to the mind of your parents. So what?<br />Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-52789801740715646802017-02-18T21:20:19.518-05:002017-02-18T21:20:19.518-05:00The computer's deduction traces back to the mi...The computer's deduction traces back to the mind of the programmerJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-77841171600970499892017-02-18T21:07:24.435-05:002017-02-18T21:07:24.435-05:00"Repeating a falsehood does not make it a fal..."Repeating a falsehood does not make it a falsehood." I don't think that's what you meant to say. Gerry Myersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01740997271172353562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-80650864392256785192017-02-17T13:48:13.208-05:002017-02-17T13:48:13.208-05:00Repeating a falsehood does not make it a falsehood...Repeating a falsehood does not make it a falsehood.<br /><br />If a computer deduces that it is raining, that gives it information. No mind involved, unless you want to admit that a computer could be a mind (fine with me). You don't even have a <i>definition</i> of "mind".<br /><br />By the definition of rain, yes, if there are a few drops, then it is rain. Are you trying intentionally to be stupid?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-29489937819364176682017-02-16T12:29:29.638-05:002017-02-16T12:29:29.638-05:00'Does weather have informational content?
Cer...'Does weather have informational content?<br /><br />Certainly it does. Take, for example, whether it is raining or not in a place where it rains half the time. Knowing whether it is currently raining gives you one bit of information.'<br /><br />Two problems: Like i said in previous post (groovamos) there must be a mind for there to be information. Jeffrey maybe inadvertently admits it in the above: "gives you one bit of information", "you" being a person of sound mind. If it is raining in an area where there is no mind to know it and understand it, there is no information.<br /><br />Aside from this, whether it is raining or not can't be communicated by one bit. So a few drops come down. Is it raining because of those few drops? If so when exactly did it start and when exactly did it quit? How does one bit flip at a precise time when rain stops? Or starts?MSEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488901388726249475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-85873016707094497352012-09-01T13:00:11.745-04:002012-09-01T13:00:11.745-04:00I read that paper (or at least am still reading it...I read that paper (or at least am still reading it) that was presented in an early comment.<br /><br />I can't believe a philosopher of such distinction would engage in a discussion which he clearly (by his own writing) as not the slightest information about.<br /><br />Especially when the use of genetic algorithms remove all requirement to propose ID... unless god is also acting on the functions in a computer program that mutate the digital genotype to create a solution.<br /><br />He also can't claim he didn't know about these, as an eminent philosopher he would surely have gone off to find out if there were any non biological examples of mutation and selection...If I can do that and not be a philosopher of merit...then surely he has no excuse? <br /><br />Had he taken such a detour from his typing enterprises he would have come across genetic algorithms in seconds.<br /><br />So the next question for him would be...is this designer also fiddling about with the correct functioning of software along with the checksums put in place to ensure it runs correctly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-65375873159469508702011-06-01T23:25:59.239-04:002011-06-01T23:25:59.239-04:00To be blunt, Anonymous, you are in no position to ...To be blunt, Anonymous, you are in no position to call other people intellectual hacks.<br /><br /><i>You yourself, Shallit, seem to be ruling out a priori that just because Nagel recommends a book, he seems to be endorsing all of said book's claims, and that if a community of scientists disagree with him, then he must be wrong.</i><br /><br />Case in point. By saying that Dr. Shallit is "ruling this out <i>a priori</i>" you are firmly implying that he is <b>not</b> making this argument you described. So either you've come here to tell Dr. Shallit what he is not doing, or you simply threw <i>a priori</i> in without caring what it actually means. This is the sign of a pseudo-intellectual poseur.<br /><br /><i>If we prize the community version of scientific knowledge, and if somehow all of our scientists collectively came together and told us that black people are inferior to white people (which scientists have actually done), then you would have to agree with those scientists, wouldn't you?</i><br /><br />No. It is possible to make a dissident argument that challenges the prevailing consensus. It just helps your reputation if you do so <i>honestly</i> and not by substantially misrepresenting the consensus science, by refusing to subject your own work to experimental verification, and by plugging it in front of school boards and state legislatures instead of in peer-reviewed journals, professional conferences, and symposia. Guess which way the cdesign proponentsists have chosen to do this?<br /><br /><i>Furthermore, philosophers really deal with matters that are unanswerable by science.</i><br /><br />Peachy. So what is Nagel doing recommending pseudoscientific texts instead of sticking to his admitted areas of expertise?<br /><br /><i>Nagel has made consistently one of the best points about evolution which no else seems to bring up: the probability of life evolving out of nonliving matter is about one in a billion billion, which should lead to some doubts about the supposed certainty of naturalistic evolution.</i><br /><br />I'd love to see the Bayesian priors that went into that calculation. Since you like quotes from philosophers so much, here's one from Friedrich Nietzsche: "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments" (<i>The Gay Science</i>, aph. 191).<br /><br />Contrary to your claim that "no [one] else" brings this up, the probability argument is <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html" rel="nofollow">one of the oldest and tritest arguments in the creationist arsenal</a>. If there has been any diminution in how often it appears, it may be because its proponents are too embarrassed to bring it up any more. It is based on nothing but numbers pulled out from the rectum and asserted with the finality of holy writ. It also has the fault of being completely irrelevant. What you call "naturalistic evolution" is perfectly consistent with any origins of life scenario, as long as it results in organisms that has heritable variation and a finite population.<br /><br />If this is what Nagel has actually argued, then Nagel is a fucking chump. Fortunately for Nagel's dwindling reputation, I highly suspect that you are putting words in his mouth.Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-20139464333498100572010-12-22T01:32:31.159-05:002010-12-22T01:32:31.159-05:00I'm coming late to this, but I read the rambli...I'm coming late to this, but I read the ramblings of an intellectual hack like the this Shallit character, I cannot help myself.<br /><br />You yourself, Shallit, seem to be ruling out a priori that just because Nagel recommends a book, he seems to be endorsing all of said book's claims, and that if a community of scientists disagree with him, then he must be wrong. If we prize the community version of scientific knowledge, and if somehow all of our scientists collectively came together and told us that black people are inferior to white people (which scientists have actually done), then you would have to agree with those scientists, wouldn't you? Remember what Kant said: "Dare to use your own reason"...unless of course you object to Kant because he had no knowledge of Darwin? ;)<br /><br />Furthermore, philosophers really deal with matters that are unanswerable by science. Consider ethics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology. Ethics is supposed to show us that which should be, not that which is (which science helps to show us), logic is presupposed by science, metaphysics by its very definition explains that which science cannot explain, and epistemology is the field where we engage in questions about how we come to know the validity of certain claims, including such claims as "the scientific method is a valid method of gaining knowledge". <br /><br />Nagel has made consistently one of the best points about evolution which no else seems to bring up: the probability of life evolving out of nonliving matter is about one in a billion billion, which should lead to some doubts about the supposed certainty of naturalistic evolution. Why does he need to consult scientists for this, unless of course scientists have proved that life evolving without a designer is indeed highly probable, which seems unlikely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-56958058812546988992010-01-15T11:46:15.932-05:002010-01-15T11:46:15.932-05:00In the forming of an intricate snow flake, the phy...In the forming of an intricate snow flake, the physical forces provided by nearby water molecules can be seen as constituting <i>information</i> for every incoming molecule to position itself. Yet no mind is involved in the process.Emerson Costa (Ensjo)https://www.blogger.com/profile/05400061565226262393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-3602192852805043732009-12-26T06:56:49.747-05:002009-12-26T06:56:49.747-05:00Sure. I'm a mathematician (and computer scien...Sure. I'm a mathematician (and computer scientist) and I'm stupid about many things. Don't ask me anything about Etruscan thought, or Thai cooking, or the history of rugby.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-54740289774757391112009-12-26T06:15:26.659-05:002009-12-26T06:15:26.659-05:00No offense, please, but have you ever considered y...No offense, please, but have you ever considered yourself a stupid mathematician?Enézio E. de Almeida Filhohttp://pos-darwinista.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com