ID is correct either way?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@EricMH

Are you arguing that all processes that are not Turing-reducible require intelligence?

Yes, has to be a halting oracle. Intelligence is a halting oracle.

What evidence do you have that Intelligence is a halting oracle. This appears to be false.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@EricMH

Intelligence is a halting oracle.

And we are all intelligent, because we eventually die (halt).

(sarcasm).

[EricMH (Eric Michael Holloway)]

@swamidass

What evidence do you have that Intelligence is a halting oracle. This appears to be false.

If intelligence creates mutual information, then it has to be a halting oracle. Just a process of elimination from Levin’s proof.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@EricMH

Yes, has to be a halting oracle. Intelligence is a halting oracle.

So all physical processes in the universe are either Turing machines or halting oracles? Those are the only options?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@EricMH

What evidence do you have that Intelligence is a halting oracle. This appears to be false.

If intelligence creates mutual information, then it has to be a halting oracle. Just a process of elimination from Levin’s proof.

This is just false @EricMH. If Intelligence is a halting oracle, I should be able to show you arbitrary code, and you would be able to tell me from studying it with 100% accuracy if it halts or not. You cannot do this.

You are also equivocating MI of the specific narrow kind of which Levin means, with MI of any type. This is not valid. We have gone over this several times.

You are making a false dilemma out of this.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@EricMH

No, should not be possible if the organism only is operating by chance + determinism. Hence, vitalism is the best explanation.

Well, either that or you’re wrong about what’s possible under chance+determinism. We know at least one process by which functional DNA is generated: somatic hypermutation in B-cells. Where does vitalism fit in when we have a mechanistic explanation for the process?

[EricMH (Eric Michael Holloway)]

A number of these are the Anthropomorphic Fallacy.

I am not saying DNA is computer code as written by a human programmer. I am saying DNA is morphological to the input tape a Turing machine operates on.

@swamidass

1. Very important for the proofs being laid out, computer code executed on a computer is an essentially closed system. Turing machines are closed systems. In contrast, organisms are not closed systems.

Nothing changes the dynamics of a Turing machine by adding an oracle. Only exception is if the oracle can do something non-Turing reducible.

@swamidass

2. Computer programs are understandable by humans and created by humans, and are unambiguously interpretable by human created machines. None of this is true for organisms.

This is the anthropic fallacy. I’m not talking about human written code.

@swamidass

3. Computer programs, when mutated, usually fail catastrophically. Organisms, when mutated, usually do not fail catastrophically.

This is the anthropic fallacy. I’m not talking about human written code.

Nothing inherently about a tape makes it fail catastrophically when mutated.

@swamidass

4. Computer programs do not reproduce themselves usually, and when they do (like viruses), they do not have any ontegeny in that reproduction. Organisms do usually reproduce, and are defined by an ontogenic process.

This is the anthropic fallacy. I’m not talking about human written code.

@swamidass

5. Computer programs do not naturally produce variants in the wild and are not subject to selective pressures. Organisms usually do produce variants in the wild, and are subject to selective pressures.

This is the anthropic fallacy. I’m not talking about human written code.

@swamidass

6. Computer programs are usually required to operate at a very high level of reliability. Organisms operate at a much lower level of reliability.

This is the anthropic fallacy. I’m not talking about human written code.

@swamidass

7. Computer programs are designed in many ways to have “interchangeable components”, and these components are very frequently interchanged. Organisms are not this way at all, except in some very rare exceptions. We do not see interchangeability of components.

This is the anthropic fallacy. I’m not talking about human written code.

@swamidass

8. Computer programs are pure information, and separable entirely from their hardware, and usually independent of hardware. The same is not true of organisms at all. We have never seen the information in an organism required to recreate said organism (which is more than just DNA) separated from the hardware itself.

This is the anthropic fallacy. I’m not talking about human written code.

@swamidass

9. Computer programs use digital logic, but organisms use more analogue logic, even at the level of DNA.

Making a computer analog does not increase its power beyond a Turing machine.

@swamidass

I could go on and on. There are just so many differences. If you start from the “life is just a computer program” conceit, you can be certain you are totally confused about life actually is.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@EricMH

I am saying DNA is morphological to the input tape a Turing machine operates on.

And I’m informing you that your model of living systems is inadequate. Organisms do not in any way follow this pattern. That is entirely clear. You did not know this?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@EricMH

A number of these are the Anthropomorphic Fallacy .

Not at all. I’m referring to @colewd, who is talking about human written code. All what I wrote is a valid response to him.

[EricMH (Eric Michael Holloway)]

@swamidass

You did not know this?

The point of my argument is that with either alternative ID is correct.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@EricMH

… well known theorems like the law of information non growth means unguided…and probably guided…evolution cannot generate highly complex organisms through mutating DNA.

@EricMH,

This is the most brash statement you have ever made. The only way this can be true is if you limit God’s power to govern.

Are you getting a little too desperate to prove your I.D. stance?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@EricMH

Yes, has to be a halting oracle. Intelligence is a halting oracle.

Is death a halting oracle?

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@swamidass

I am certain that DNA is not because it is not a closed system.

Can you explain what you mean here? This seems incorrect to me so it must mean something other than what I’m assuming it means.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@EricMH

ID must be correct, regardless of whether DNA is computational or not.

This reminds me a bit of some of the ten laws of intelligent design/creationism.

Perhaps to @glipsnort’s comment:

@glipsnort

We can observe the appearance of thousands of bits of functional information in the DNA within a single living organism.

I can cite law #3:
Anything found in nature was Designed, unless it can be reproduced in the lab. Corollary: Anything intentionally done in a lab is not natural; it’s a purposeful result. Therefore, all lab results are evidence of Intelligent Design.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@pevaquark

I can cite law #3:

@pevaquark

As humorous as your point is, the Position of Peaceful Science is that We Accept, by Faith, that the Universe is full of the Teleology of God… but that no science can definitively detect God’s Teleology.