 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
"and light photons provide your eyes with data, which your brain translates into information."
So we need a brain then in order for information to exist?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
No i'm not... being difficult... i'm being specific.
A book only has meaning to us, because the specific arrangement and vector of molecules reflect light at a visible wavelength to us.
A book would not be informational to
a) someone who could not view that wavelength... if a mutation to human vision occured... EVEN if he had knowledge of the language..
and
b) to a human prior to the invention of the language- if a fold in space time presented a book to a human 10000 years ago, they would not find it to be information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
Lincoln: No big deal, but could you use the quote feature when quoting posts? It makes it a lot easier to separate your words from the quoted material.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
No, the “examination” is done by the process of reading and translating and using the code to produce a viable product, i.e., a biological machine. |
You said before that information requires an intelligent (sentient) receiver. Are you now saying that each and every one of our cells is sentient? For that matter, are you saying that every single cell in every single organism is sentient? If not, then there is no intelligent examination of the data in DNA.
quote:
It also contains far more ‘information’ than a molecule of water. |
It certainly does for us. However, since individual cells are not sentient, individual cells can gain just as much information from a water molecule as they can from a DNA molecule. Specifically, they can gain no information.
quote:
One is merely a record of the laws of physics the other is true information, or as MrBaggins says, meaningful information. |
How so? A cell uses DNA, and a cell uses water. A cell does NOT examine either. Therefore, to a cell, water contains just as much information as DNA, even though the cell requires both (assuming, of course, that the cell is not using an alternate means of replicating itself, such as proteins or RNA).
quote:
If you can falsify the argument thus far then do it now. |
Since your argument is that information requires an intelligent receiver, then you have refuted your own argument that DNA is information from creation to destuction. DNA is not information until it is examined by an intelligent agent (if ever). It is just a molecule, albeit a complex one, otherwise no different from water or coal.
quote:
Whoever or whatever made chemistry is irrelevant. |
For purposes of this discussion, I agree. That's why I recommended that Jack start a metaphysics thread if he wanted to discuss the matter further.
quote:
The question is the code and the information within the code. |
And since it isn't information until a sentient being examines it, it isn't information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
no... we need to have all necessary components to receive the data, process it (a brain is necessary for humans here) and a context or historical memory of the data to convert it to information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Goingonit
*snip*
Think of DNA as a computer with no memory banks. It still has a "processor", which, when activated (catalysed) will perform certain actions, but, just as a computer does not perform the basic processor commands using information, so does DNA create amino acids without interpreting anything. |
DNA has no processing ability. Only growth mediums, such as stem cells DO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"to a human prior to the invention of the language- if a fold in space time presented a book to a human 10000 years ago, they would not find it to be information."
They would recognize it (assuming they had a brain) as a code and it would suggest that it contained information. That is how intelligence is implied -- by coded language. If it was purely random then it would not suggest information or if it was random repeats it would not suggest intelligence. Information is implied when a code is in existance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
no.. information has meaning that you can understand and connect to other concepts.
One book would be a mysterious relic.
It would not contain any information for them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Goingonit
I never said it did; I just said that it acts like a computer processor in a certain way - it causes things to happen without containing information. |
I think its just a bad analogy. Its like comparing chalk and cheese. Not useful.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
BTW... Lincoln... do you realize on page 6, you disproved your argument, yourself????
are you just going to ignore that it happened?
Last edited by MrBaggins on 25-04-2002 at 20:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
delete
Last edited by MrBaggins on 25-04-2002 at 20:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
You said before that information requires an intelligent (sentient) receiver. Are you now saying that each and every one of our cells is sentient? For that matter, are you saying that every single cell in every single organism is sentient? If not, then there is no intelligent examination of the data in DNA.
It certainly does for us. However, since individual cells are not sentient, individual cells can gain just as much information from a water molecule as they can from a DNA molecule. Specifically, they can gain no information.
How so? A cell uses DNA, and a cell uses water. A cell does NOT examine either. Therefore, to a cell, water contains just as much information as DNA, even though the cell requires both (assuming, of course, that the cell is not using an alternate means of replicating itself, such as proteins or RNA).
Since your argument is that information requires an intelligent receiver, then you have refuted your own argument that DNA is information from creation to destuction. DNA is not information until it is examined by an intelligent agent (if ever). It is just a molecule, albeit a complex one, otherwise no different from water or coal.
And since it isn't information until a sentient being examines it, it isn't information. |
The sender and receiver set up the code and establish the information. DNA and the translation is the result of that input, and the process is a test of that input. It passes the test.
Gaining information is not the same as originating it. Information can be contained in water or just about anything. The problem is the source not the vehicle that carries it. The existance of DNA and the logical translation of that information is the test of the intelligent source that is behind it. This is only a test... I do not claim that intelligent life is manipulating the process once the information is entered into the program.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Lincolns got the bit about DNA ever being information... It never is...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"Lincoln... do you realize on page 6, you disproved your argument, yourself?"
I can certainly make a mistake. But what is disproved, the actual fact or a slip of my tongue? If I made a mistake then help me correct it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
all it ever is is data for a (data-processing) process to create cells. The results of the cells might be viewed as information, or even a DNA pattern in, and only in concert with a contextual result of Cell growth
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
No... you claim that information definition includes pragmatics... what does it do?
DNA alone does nothing so is not information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Now... you can change your definition... but that would be tantamount to admitting defeat
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
all it ever is is data for a (data-processing) process to create cells. The results of the cells might be viewed as information, or even a DNA pattern in, and only in concert with a contextual result of Cell growth |
Then it is true information because it produced the desired results. You have tested it and proved it as containing valid information. Congratulations!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
DNA is not DNA + a process...
DNA is just DNA...
the process does dataprocessing to provide information.(a cell)
and even a cell is only data to a human... that too has to have context of other cells to have meaning... and then again... only in concert with contextual and historical meaning... 
Last edited by MrBaggins on 25-04-2002 at 20:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
delete
Last edited by MrBaggins on 25-04-2002 at 20:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
People are able to gather information by counting the number of rings on a tree stump (for example, "how old was this tree when it died"). Does the tree read information from the rings? Of course not, the tree is non-intelligent. People are also able to gather information by examining the leaves of a tree (for example, "what kind of tree is this"). Does the tree read information from the leaf? Of course not, the tree is non-intelligent.
The tree's rings and the tree's leaves are merely structures of the tree (the rings are caused by the addition of outer layers to the trunk, the leaves are used for photosynthesis). Humans assign meaning to them that are absolutely meaningless to the tree.
Similarly, people are able to gather information by examining the DNA of a cell (for example, "does this cell have an aberrant DNA structure"). Does the cell read information from the DNA? Of course not, the cell is non-intelligent.
The cell's DNA is merely a structure of the cell (used for replication and repair). Humans assign meaning to the DNA that is absolutely meaningless to the cell. |
You did not even mention CODED information that has a logical order to translation. Tree rings etc. is not analogous to coded information. There is a meaning to the cell. A specific order of nucleotides translates into a specific amino acid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
The sender and receiver set up the code and establish the information. DNA and the translation is the result of that input, and the process is a test of that input. It passes the test. |
When and where did the cell talk to the Creator in order to work out the DNA code? (If the cell isn't the intended receiver, then what the hell is DNA for?)
quote:
The existance of DNA and the logical translation of that information is the test of the intelligent source that is behind it. |
A magnetic North pole will attract a magnetic South pole. Does this mean that the magnets worked out an information exchange system in advance? After all, they're logically translating "information" (they're decoding the poles of their counterpart magnet).
("Bill, I see that you're a South pole."
"Why yes, Herbert, I am. I see that you're a North pole, eh what?"
"Why yes, Bill, jolly good. Now, according to the Treaty of Hamfist On The Boat, we must embrace one another!"
"Let it be so, Herbert!")
quote:
I do not claim that intelligent life is manipulating the process once the information is entered into the program. |
Who is the receiver of this information if not the cell? The cell is non-intelligent, so it cannot recieve information--therefore the information encoded in DNA must be intended for another receiver. Who or what?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
lionburger> I think we've enough proof here (confirmed by Lincoln no less) to prove DNA is data and not information. Lincoln is just reluctant to admit it. I don't believe we need to help Lincoln with analogies
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-04-2002 07:20
|