More Church in the Matrix
by MikeGeneI previously wrote a short essay that documents the manner in which George Church is contemplating design in ways that echo The Design Matrix. Church, a leading pioneer in the field of synthetic biology, is already beginning to think about designing the future through the present and linking this to replication. I should point out that I am not trying to imply that Church is some type of closet IDer or sympathetic to ID. On the contrary, the significance of the echoes is stronger when you consider that Church is not in anyway associated with ID and would probably dismiss it as nonsense.
The critics of ID have long stated we needed independent evidence of the designers before we can make any judgment about design. And, of course, we have no such independent evidence. Ah, but that's where Church comes in.
He is a designer and he is trying to design life. He, in essence, doesn't know we're watching and becomes a model – a model for a designer of life. And oddly enough, as the DM ponders what biology has taught us about life and potential ways evolution could be designed, it effectively sketches out the broad outlines of "¦.. George Church. In an oblique sort of way, Church's timely musings, luckily and conveniently captured by Edge, have worked to throw a bit of corroboration toward my speculations about how "natural" life may have been designed. Consider some more excerpts:
LLOYD: Are you imputing that there's a virtue in increased complexity somehow?
CHURCH: I'm trying to make that argument. There might be a virtue in carefully contemplating not just short-term diversity, but longish-term, to the extent that we can calculate that, which we can't right now. But it's desirable to be able to calculate that as well as we can
The seeds of front-loading are all present. Just prior to this, Church was talking about design and replicated complexity, and here he not only sees a virtue in increased complexity, but is clearly interested in contemplating long-term effects.
But what will really bake your noodle is this – Church then begins to describe two types of intelligence:
There's analytic intelligence and synthetic. And I would argue that life is sort of this replicated complexity, or mutual information, where given the molecules in this leaf we can predict the arrangement of structures in the other leaf. In other words, we know a lot about this thing "” even within the leaf there's replicated complexity that is somewhat predictable "” and so that mapping, that mutual information, is predictive life in general. But the mutual information is something where one structure will reflect the structure of something at a distance "” especially if you can reflect something distant in time without actually causing it. Intelligence is anticipating things in the future, without causing them. That would be analytic intelligence. Again, it's replicated complexity "” or mutual information, even better "” where there's a relationship between the two locations, but you anticipate. That's analytic.
and
Synthetic's harder, because if you synthesize something you've used your analytic intelligence to make a plan and then make a replicated complexity of some sort at a distance, but you've done it. There's a cause and effect. And how do you distinguish between that and, say, the sun having patterned light onto the earth, and that has a cause and effect which isn't necessarily what we would recognize as intelligence. I'm still struggling with this, but I think synthetic intelligence would be something that in some way or another would enhance the analytic intelligence "” the ability of ours to predict what's going to happen in the future. So we synthesize something that will increase our ability to, say, survive as a species, to get off the planet because we know an asteroid is coming ? Various things that we would recognize as long-term intelligent behavior. Something we need to embrace is our ability to do that.
My, this is very similar to something I write about – passive front-loading and active front-loading. 
February 5th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Interesting you wrote this. I am not sure if you are aware or not, but on the amazon review of "The Design Matrix" a reviewer 'the professor' had a reviewer that criticized you for this notion of taking Churches work out of context. Perhaps someone should show him this link.
Comment by gore — February 5, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Hi Gore,
I think it safe to say that most critics will simply perceive me as being part of the ID Movement and thus interpret anything I say according. I'll just remind people of what sparked my interest in this, as it was something Paul Nelson noticed:
The argument is subtle, but it is something that strikes a loud chord in me personally. Church is a designer. He is trying to design life, as he is a lead pioneer in synthetic biology. As a designer, he is thinking about his designs and asking himself all kinds of related questions.
I wrote a book that hypothesizes that life may have been designed and as a result, began to think about what such a designer might think and plan.
And lo and behold, thanks to the Edge discussion, and Nelson's heads-up, I find a designer thinking along very similar lines as I just outlined. So let's just say that I am quite encouraged by this development.
And speaking of being encouraged, I just finished reading a paper that outlines yet another example that adds even more to the growing plausibility of designing the future through the present.
Comment by MikeGene — February 6, 2008 @ 12:06 am
February 6th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Sounds like a portent of a blog to come.:smile:
Comment by Bradford — February 6, 2008 @ 12:10 am
February 6th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Indeed. I gave the vertebrate eye a Rationality score of -2. But I also gave it a Foresight score of +2. But it will likely have to wait until the weekend.
Comment by MikeGene — February 6, 2008 @ 12:15 am
February 7th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Speaking of the vertebrate eye.
I've recently been reading the falsely advertised book The Panda's Black Box in which one author puts forth the claim, without quoting or citing, that Michael Behe claims the eye is irreducibly complex. This assertion can be found on page 52 in the chapter by Scott F. Gilbert.
Does anyone know if Behe has actually made such a claim?
There are a number of other assertions attributed to Behe without any supporting quotes or cites, so if anyone knows how to contact him they might want to give him a heads up and a chance to respond. Perhaps post a review on Amazon.
Comment by Mung — February 7, 2008 @ 2:46 am
February 7th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Hi Mung,
Behe does not make any such claim.
In Darwin's Black Box he says:
Comment by Pez — February 7, 2008 @ 5:31 am
February 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Hi Pez,
While I agree that Behe probably didn't say the eye was irreducibly complex, especially not in the original Darwin's Black Box, here is what Behe did say…
I understand this is on Page 18 of DBB
Behe was boldly clear in Darwin's Black Box when the definition of Irreducible Complex was unequivocally…
page 39
Eventually Behe modified it to be more of a continuum similar to Mike Gene's Design Matrix…
From Behe's In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison
While this doesn't do much about the shield bashing attack on ID Critics, it does get back to talking about Mike Gene's DM and scoring how designed the eye is and is not.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 7, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Hi TP,
Pretty pointless exercise that was, don't you think?
Did Behe say the eye was irreducibly complex? No.
Your implication that the definition of IC has changed is also pointless. The definition can not accommodate all the concept says and sometimes it needs clarification. Have you ever noticed that in real life as well?
It amuses me that you even thought you had to go Googling to find something against Behe in this situation where the answer is obvious. Just can't let a chance to kick him pass, can you?
Comment by Pez — February 7, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Hi Pez,
The point of the exercise was to parley where Behe acquiesced that IC isn't a black and white issue into showing the real life applicability of Mike Gene's Design Matrix.
I didn't have to go looking. I knew how to find DBB excerpts and was quite familiar with Behe's ARN response and knew where it was.
And how does my post "kick him"
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 7, 2008 @ 3:52 pm