William Dembski on Complex Specified Information
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ธ.ค. 2024
- A noted mathematician and philosopher, William A. Dembski is a Founding and Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and a Distinguished Fellow with the Institute’s Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence. His most recent books relating to intelligent design include Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information (2014), Evolutionary Informatics (2017, co-authored with Robert Marks and Winston Ewert), and the second edition of The Design Inference (2023, co-authored with Winston Ewert). More info here: www.discovery....
Takes me right back to Wolfgang, what a journey he took us on.. Great job Karen, I'm excited to listen.
Excited to listen to this one! Thank you for sharing :)
I cannot wait to listen to this! I can’t believe I’m late! Damn the TH-cam algorithm!
I am so glad this conversation was able to happen! I cannot wait for Dembski's new book on conservation of information to come out. I hope that he draws the logical conclusions from conservation of information and makes the case for ID on its basis. Bill strikes me as not the biggest bulldog for his own ideas; I wish he would be more forceful with them. The only thing I would comment on is the discussion of niche construction.
If the environment and organism are going to "influence" each other, they will only be able to convey that which is already contained within them (whether it be behavioral or organismal characteristics doesn't matter) The problem of the CREATION of novel information has not been addressed at all it seems to me. This scheme would have the animal creating itself basically. The changes the organism makes to the environment are seen as being responsible for the development of new traits in the organism, so it is circular. I cant see how this is possible. It strikes me like a biological perpetual motion machine. I am not convinced, personally.
I'm here b/c of Wolfgang Smith's "Vertical Ascent"
Just starting a listen - the reply to probability argument usually is : but here we are, so it must not have been impossible because it happened.
DNA produces proteins.
It does not code for function.
It does not code for systems.
Function and systems have to be integrated even more directed than proteins.
Bricks do not know where to go, when to go or what they are supposed to do.
Bricks are not the only structures in the building of a functional structure.
Even if you built all the building materials and put them together the difference between a living thing and a non living thing is structurally equivalent.
As Wolfram claims, a rock and a brain are computationally equivalent.
Therefore a living vs a non living brain are computationally equivalent.
Therefore “ living “ is outside the scope of computation.
Demski is great here. However, as I am oft to claim, everyone is both incorrect and correct. IMHO Demski is off in that the information is more than offered. The geometry of creation is a description of God.