CSI - complex, specified information seems to be an important concept in ID. I would like to explore the "specified" part of that in this thread.
Another poster said:
If specificity is a measure of meaning, then does its value change depending on the user? What looks like a bunch of random characters to one person, could be meaningful to another if the latter can read the language.
In what sense does a passage of text have functionality?
Or is functionality just throw in to ensure this is particularly about DNA, and in fact a book, for example, does not actually contain CSI? But then, in what sense does a string of bases have meaning?
Another poster said:
Okay, so specificity is a measure of it functionality and meaning, that is fair enough, but how are these things being measured?I was giving an ad lib answer when I stated that specificity was added in. I didn't intend it to mean that the observer could haphazardly add in specificity. By add in, I meant to the definition. But nice try. Shannon does not regard meaning while CSI does. Shannon is used to measure the complexity of the information while specificity is a measure of it functionality and meaning. This is how I understand CSI and not speaking as an associate member of the Discovery Institute.
If specificity is a measure of meaning, then does its value change depending on the user? What looks like a bunch of random characters to one person, could be meaningful to another if the latter can read the language.
In what sense does a passage of text have functionality?
Or is functionality just throw in to ensure this is particularly about DNA, and in fact a book, for example, does not actually contain CSI? But then, in what sense does a string of bases have meaning?
Last edited: