24-04-2002 07:49									#31
	Increase Your PM Length

Define how the the algorithm is intelligent according to:

the capacity to aquire and apply knowledge
the faculty of thought and reason.

	24-04-2002 07:50									#32
	Support Apolyton

"This was never under contention."

This is the whole purpose of this thread -- to determine if intelligent input is required in the formation of the DNA code and the specified information contained within it.

	24-04-2002 07:52									#33
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I'm getting to the DNA. Stop avoiding. Prove the intelligence of the algorithm or admit that you cannot, and we'll move on to the DNA.

	24-04-2002 07:53									#34
	Support Apolyton

I don't claim that it is intelligent.

	24-04-2002 07:54									#35
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln I don't agree but let's say that you are right. You still require an intelligent agent to establish meaningfull communication.

This proves that DNA's 'information' is not the same type of 'information' as this post.

This post, as an example, only becomes information if someoone (say, for argument's sake, you) read it. DNA creates amino acids, et cetera only by virtue of the laws of the universe.

I am not going into the "what is consciousness" question that this begs, because nobody has a satisfactory answer to that.

	24-04-2002 07:55									#36
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Either way it requires intelligent input to produce meaningful information.

It requires intelligent processing, not intelligent input. The computer has no idea what it's spitting out.

	24-04-2002 07:56									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Hi GP,

Thailand was great. I might retire there someday. I have some friends that I write to. One is very pretty but who knows what will come of it.

	24-04-2002 07:56									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Goingonit This proves that DNA's 'information' is not the same type of 'information' as this post. This post, as an example, only becomes information if someoone (say, for argument's sake, you) read it. DNA creates amino acids, et cetera only by virtue of the laws of the universe. I am not going into the "what is consciousness" question that this begs, because nobody has a satisfactory answer to that.

Wrong actually... I have just proved an unintelligent agent has produced information that has become meaningful information.

We'll get to DNA later.

	24-04-2002 07:58									#39
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln This is the whole purpose of this thread -- to determine if intelligent input is required in the formation of the DNA code and the specified information contained within it.

Yes, and it was never under contention that an intelligent agent is needed to interpret information. DNA is not intelligent, therefore it cannot interpret information. Humans are intelligent, therefore they can interpret information.

	24-04-2002 07:58									#40
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Are we all agreed that the originator AND the original information WAS NOT INTELLIGENT

	24-04-2002 07:58									#41
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins Wrong actually... I have just proved an unintelligent agent has produced information that has become meaningful information. We'll get to DNA later.

Yes - I get your point. Information is meaningful based on the recipient.

DNA requires no recipient to interpret, thus it is not "meaningful information" in the same sense.

	24-04-2002 08:00									#42
	Support Apolyton

"AHAH... but the algorithm produced the information BEFORE it became meaningful information"

That doesn't matter. It still was meaningless until you are another intelligent agent assigned it meaning. I could for example make a language out of naturally forming crystals. But it still requires an intelligent agen to assign meaning to that which formed spontaneously.

	24-04-2002 08:02									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln quote: "AHAH... but the algorithm produced the information BEFORE it became meaningful information" That doesn't matter. It still was meaningless until you are another intelligent agent assigned it meaning.

Look at his post again, you're repeating what he just said.

	24-04-2002 08:03									#44
	Remove this text

Yes... thats true... but the originator was not intelligent. Only the RECEIVER... yes?

	24-04-2002 08:05									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Actually the point that remains regardless is that I answered the questions correctly that were posed by MrBaggins in the first post.

	24-04-2002 08:08									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The first version was ambiguous because of time. I have altered the situation to remove the ambiguity.

quote: AHAH... but the algorithm produced the information BEFORE it became meaningful information" That doesn't matter. It still was meaningless until you are another intelligent agent assigned it meaning. I could for example make a language out of naturally forming crystals. But it still requires an intelligent agen to assign meaning to that which formed spontaneously.

Yes... thats true... but in the situation provided... the locked up computer and you making the word up, the originator was not intelligent. Only the RECEIVER was intelligent... yes?

	24-04-2002 08:09									#47
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"but the originator was not intelligent. Only the RECEIVER... yes?"

The origination was only order not meaningful information. It only gained meaning after you assigned meaning to it. Or you assigned meaning before you started it. It was not information in other words until you made it information.

	24-04-2002 08:10									#48
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Yes... thats true... but in the situation provided... the locked up computer and you making the word up, the originator was not intelligent. Only the RECEIVER was intelligent... yes or no?

only answer yes or no

	24-04-2002 08:11									#49
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln "but the originator was not intelligent. Only the RECEIVER... yes?" The origination was only order not meaningful information. It only gained meaning after you assigned meaning to it. Or you assigned meaning before you started it. It was not information in other words until you made it information.

And the same is true with DNA.

	24-04-2002 08:12									#50
	Put an end to popups!

quote: It was not information in other words until you made it information.

Which is exactly why DNA does not require an encoder.

Edit: Cross-post. Goingonit beat me to it.

	24-04-2002 08:13									#51
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

"only answer yes or no"

Sorry buddy but that is not a yes or no answer. I already ansered as briefly as I could.

	24-04-2002 08:13									#52
	Full PM-box? Change here!

this is all true, but i'm just stepping through the proof.

	24-04-2002 08:14									#53
	Increase Your PM Length

was the originator intelligent? yes or no.

	24-04-2002 08:14									#54
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Sorry buddy but that is not a yes or no answer. I already ansered as briefly as I could.

If you're going to turn to semantics to save you, then replace "information" with "data." The non-intelligent source produces data, the intelligent receiver turns this into information. The point, as always, is that the source is non-intelligent.

	24-04-2002 08:15									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

one way to test the program to see if it really does contain meaningful information is to run it again and see if the next run actually goes to bed.

	24-04-2002 08:16									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

rule 5 no humor

	24-04-2002 08:17									#57
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

you're doing really well with this experiment... don't fall asleep now... you might never wake up.

	24-04-2002 08:17									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

"If you're going to turn to semantics to save you, then replace "information" with "data."

Actually that is a very good point. I think that the word "information" is used far too loosely. We should define it to avoid confusion.

	24-04-2002 08:19									#59
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

yep... ok the algorithm produces data... which you perceive as information.

the sender however, was not intelligent.

	24-04-2002 08:20									#60
	Remove this text

Sorry everyone, it's been fun but I will have to catch up tomorrow. I am going to bod. *dam algotithim it still can't spell*