 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
The cell is the result of a code that was set up by an intelligent being. The proof is in the code and the translation and the result of that translation. And the north pole thing is irrelevant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
LOLOL... but no Intelligent being is required. Data can have entirely non-intelligent sources (random permutations). You are just providing an answer searching for a question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Lincoln... btw stop avoiding the issue regarding pragmatics... you can't unwrite what you said... well... maybe you can... but that also... would be forfeit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"There is order to the tree rings. Count the number of rings, find out the age of the tree. The tree isn't going to try to obfuscate you by adding multiple rings in a single year or by skipping years--it's just as orderly as DNA, and much more easily understood by an observer."
There is no coded language in tree rings that is analagous to the DNA "language" that is composed of triplets made up of 4 letters -- That is in turn translated into one of twenty amino acids -- that in turn is combined with others and in turn folded precisely. You are talking about order not information. But like you said there needs to be an inteligent source before true information can exist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
The pragmatics issue was settled about 6 or 7 pages ago. What is your point now?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Anyway since we are on the subject of pragmatics I am going to bed. night all . . .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
You said in response to this post by me.
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Actually... DNA doesn't fit YOUR definition of information
4. Pragmatics.
This is the practical level. What does this actually do? Answer; It makes specific proteins. The whole idea of the code is to actually do something practical which is the making of specific proteins with a specific function that perform specific tasks that are useful in the organism. DNA when translated by the ribosomes and the accompanying machinery actually produces the desired product. Information to be useful must actually do something. The information contained in DNA actually works and has a practical value.
DNA does nothing... it is used by a dumb process |
the following...
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
"DNA does nothing... it is used by a dumb process"
Well you are finally getting the point. Which brings us to the topic. That is the source of information contained in DNA. Just like a computer program is a "dumb process" it has as its source an intelligent being that is capable of making value judgments. Call that information "data" or "bits" or whatever it is still operating as a result of intelligent input. DNA is not intelligent. I never said it was. If you are saying that it contains dumb data then you are correct if you understand the source of that data. |
This is agreement to the fact that a) it does nothing; its dumb hence has no action, ergo is not information, as defined by your pragmatics... b) you say I am correct in saying that it contains dumb data.
You have said DNA is data two ways here.. your only arguement is that it some how 'REQUIRES' original intelligent design. Which it doesn't.
If it was information... it might require... but data has far lower standards... radioactive elements 'provide' data. Random chemical interactions provide data (in the form of permutations, like... oh... random DNA or its randomized constituent parts)
And before you try and twist the meaning...
"Data is Data is Data"
Data is not information unless it is processed. Irrespective of the origin.
Last edited by MrBaggins on 25-04-2002 at 08:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Talk about semantic tricks MrBaggins. You seem to be trying to avoid the obvious by playing games with definitions and word parsing.
DNA does contain "dumb data". There is no magic involved in its random formation nor is their an intelligent source required when that data is being processed. I never said differently. So does a computer which has been programmed by an intelligent being contain “dumb data” and the processing precedes (usually) without intelligent input. So why do you find it necessary to continually evade the obvious?
“The point” which I thought you were finally getting (which I think you understand clearly in spite of your evasion) is that an intelligent being is required for true information to exist whether it is in the form of “dumb data”, chemical bonds or audible speech or the exchange of e-mails by two living intelligent beings.
This entire forum is made up of “dumb data” but it is obvious proof that intelligent agents are behind the data. This forum is also full of information yet you would for some reason evade that issue.
Now let’s discuss exactly what the “dumb data” in DNA is doing:
A. It is sitting there full of information just like a book sitting on a shelf, unread, contains information. The reason that even the unread book contains information is because the coded language that is contained in the book has been broken and it has been proved to contain real information. The book is therefore prima facie evidence of intelligent life. Now there is no reason to go into the philosophical argument about a tree falling in the woods with no one around to see it. If that is where you are anyone else is going then you are on the wrong thread.
The data in DNA is in coded form. The code has been broken. AUG means Methionine. UGG means Tryptophan. And the other available triplets made up of the for base letters ((ACUG) all have real meanings. Even when the DNA is in a dead organism it has meaning and it contains information. AUG means Methionine just like “boy” means young man. The code in DNA has meaning to both us and to the machinery in the cell.
B. DNA in a living organism is translated. The formation of the letters b,o,y have no meaning until meaning is assigned to them by both the sender and receiver. The letters UGG have meaning when the triplet is translated. There is agreement between the sender and receiver.
C. DNA has information within it that makes things when it is translated and put to work. An instruction book has real practical value when it is read and the instructions are followed by a builder. Those instructions may be entered into a machine and the machine can follow them and also make things. DNA instructions are read by mRNA and translated using tRNA and rRNA where it is formed into a viable product that has a specific function in building, maintaining, regulating or reproducing the organism. DNA is proved to be a coded language because of its practical value. It has the same practical value as an instruction book has. It contains information.
D. The information contained in DNA has a purpose or goal [apobetics]. Even in a seed the DNA contains the instructions that will make an apple tree or whatever. When those instructions are read by mRNA and put to work with the rest of the biological machinery then an apple tree is inevitable. It will not become instead a frog or a prince. The specified order of DNA produces specified results. There is a goal even if the purpose is not achieved (through accident etc.).
So we have all of the key ingredients of information contained in DNA. 1. Statistics. 2. Syntax. 3. Semantics. 4. Pragmatics. 5. Apobetics.
Whether living or dead, DNA contains information. The code is broken by us as observers and it is broken and used by the machinery of the cell and the accompanying organism. Please no more parsing of the English language for evasive purposes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
The topic is the SOURCE of information. Yes, chemical laws use it but that does not explain the source. |
The source is the environment.
This part of the disscussion looks like a chat log.
Mr. Baggins is spreading connected statement over several posts. I am beginning to wonder if he is trying to get up to the 500 post limit before anyone says anything of note.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Goingonit
ALL DNA DOES IS CAUSE REACTIONS TO OCCUR BY VIRTUE OF ELECTRICAL CHARGES!
|
You know that and I know that even they know that. Lincoln and Baggins both seem to be in denial about the discussion actualy going somewhere. They don't even want anyone discussing it till the they get to one plus one.
You would think the were writing Principia Mathematica from first principals and couldn't decide if they want Modus Ponens or Modus Tolens as a starting point.
Whithead and Russell failed to do what they tried folks. GET ON WITH IT.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
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. |
The sender is a string of DNA. The reciever is a ribosome. There is only data being transmited. The sender is not inteligent nor is any needed.
quote:
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. |
Only if you consider a molecule to be inteligent. This is the reason people are saying DNA is date not information. You are trying to define data as a sign of god.
quote:
This is only a test... I do not claim that intelligent life is manipulating the process once the information is entered into the program. |
The information came from the evironment. It was never entered. It was pruned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Then it is true information because it produced the desired results. You have tested it and proved it as containing valid information. Congratulations! |
There were no desired results. Cells have no desires. The only reason why they replicate is that if they didn't they wouldn't exist.
You declare victory where there is none.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
The cell is the result of a code that was set up by an intelligent being. |
The cell is a result of evolution. The code is a result of evolution and human labeling of a chemical process as a code.
quote:
The proof is in the code and the translation and the result of that translation. And the north pole thing is irrelevant. |
There is no proof there. Only Zuul.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
Lincoln:
I still don't see any point to this. What is the substance of your objection?
So far, it seems that you're still hung up on the artificial nature of some of the analogies being used. Try my example mentioned on the other thread: the "information" contained in starlight, used by astronomers to determine the composition of stars. This is undoubtedly "data", it undoubtedly conveys knowledge to the astronomer, and it undoubtedly has no intelligent originator (unless you're arguing that stars must therefore be intelligent).
The ability of evolution to increase the "information" content of a genome is quite straightforward and verified by observation: mutation creates random variation, natural selection eliminates harmful traits and propagates useful ones, leading to a relentless accumulation of useful traits over time.
It seems that your sole refutation of this consists of a repetition of Gitt's rules as some sort of mantra. Lincoln, you are making a very bold claim here. You're not just saying that an intelligent being MIGHT have tinkered with the process, but that such a being MUST have. Such a claim requires evidence, and "Gitt says so" isn't evidence. Furthermore, "intelligent beings use codes" isn't decisive evidence either: it's like saying "because humans use fire, all fires must be started by humans". No matter how many fires you mention (campfires, bonfires, candles, oxyacetylene blowtorches, jet exhausts), you cannot use such examples to prove that NO natural phenomenon can start a fire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Let me include the the prequisite statements to the definition of data that you already agreed to 
quote:
Data on its own has no meaning, only when interpreted by some kind of data processing system does it take on meaning and become information.
People or computers can find patterns in data to perceive information, and information can be used to enhance knowledge. Since knowledge is prerequisite to wisdom, we always want more data and information. But, as modern societies verge on information overload, we especially need better ways to find patterns.
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Talk about semantic tricks MrBaggins. You seem to be trying to avoid the obvious by playing games with definitions and word parsing.
|
LOLOL... you're the one parsing it for evasional purposes. Answer the pragmatic issue in one discrete post. Please. Include ONLY DNA. Do not include DNA->process or DNA->analysis.
quote:
DNA does contain "dumb data". There is no magic involved in its random formation nor is their an intelligent source required when that data is being processed. I never said differently. So does a computer which has been programmed by an intelligent being contain “dumb data” and the processing precedes (usually) without intelligent input. So why do you find it necessary to continually evade the obvious?
|
Here you say DNA is dumb data. Good you finally get it.
Regarding the rest, nice try but no... the primary dataprocessng of DNA occured with a dumb process of initial translation (those pesky stem cells.)
quote:
“The point” which I thought you were finally getting (which I think you understand clearly in spite of your evasion) is that an intelligent being is required for true information to exist whether it is in the form of “dumb data”, chemical bonds or audible speech or the exchange of e-mails by two living intelligent beings.
|
Natural Selection through environment IS the intelligence, although we are jumping ahead in a big way... I just hadn't gotten there yet. It imposes complex conditions. Process Reason is imposed by sighted animals being more successful that blind (generally speaking). Process Memory is created by only the successful animals survival. Process Knowledge is created by breeding, and fauna and flora interaction.
Intelligent process but no sign of a strawman.
The point is still, unfortunately for you... is DNA on its own... data? yep.
quote:
This entire forum is made up of “dumb data” but it is obvious proof that intelligent agents are behind the data. This forum is also full of information yet you would for some reason evade that issue.
|
Irrelevent side track to attempt to prove what?
quote:
Now let’s discuss exactly what the “dumb data” in DNA is doing:
A. It is sitting there full of information just like a book sitting on a shelf, unread, contains information. The reason that even the unread book contains information is because the coded language that is contained in the book has been broken and it has been proved to contain real information. The book is therefore prima facie evidence of intelligent life. Now there is no reason to go into the philosophical argument about a tree falling in the woods with no one around to see it. If that is where you are anyone else is going then you are on the wrong thread.
|
*Boing*... you jump to an irrelevent analogy. A book is different from DNA. Books were created by us to be used by us. DNA was created by nature for the solve purpose of perpetuating life. It is well defined as data. I also proved that a book does not always contain data.
quote:
The data in DNA is in coded form. The code has been broken.
|
through data-processing analysis means.
quote:
AUG means Methionine. UGG means Tryptophan. And the other available triplets made up of the for base letters ((ACUG) all have real meanings. Even when the DNA is in a dead organism it has meaning and it contains information. AUG means Methionine just like “boy” means young man. The code in DNA has meaning to both us and to the machinery in the cell.
The research only has meaning to us as so far as them being particular proteins. A printed list of one DNA writen as letters could tell you NOTHING. Only through context do they have any informational purpose. Only through context of the product of dataprocessing in life can we connect them meaningly. This is data-processing.
B. DNA in a living organism is translated. The formation of the letters b,o,y have no meaning until meaning is assigned to them by both the sender and receiver. The letters UGG have meaning when the triplet is translated. There is agreement between the sender and receiver.
C. DNA has information within it that makes things when it is translated and put to work. An instruction book has real practical value when it is read and the instructions are followed by a builder. Those instructions may be entered into a machine and the machine can follow them and also make things. DNA instructions are read by mRNA and translated using tRNA and rRNA where it is formed into a viable product that has a specific function in building, maintaining, regulating or reproducing the organism. DNA is proved to be a coded language because of its practical value. It has the same practical value as an instruction book has. It contains information.
D. The information contained in DNA has a purpose or goal [apobetics]. Even in a seed the DNA contains the instructions that will make an apple tree or whatever. When those instructions are read by mRNA and put to work with the rest of the biological machinery then an apple tree is inevitable. It will not become instead a frog or a prince. The specified order of DNA produces specified results. There is a goal even if the purpose is not achieved (through accident etc.).
So we have all of the key ingredients of information contained in DNA. 1. Statics. 2. Syntax 3. Semantics. 4. Pragmatics. 5. Apobetics.
*snip*
|
Two things are happening here...
1) You are defining DNA as information. A clever attempt at jumping from one definition to another... although not unnoticed by me. How did it suddenly jump from being DATA to INFORMATION... well... you want it as information, so you've used an example of the result of study of DNA. If you examine DNA for patterns, you create information regarding DNA... the DNA itself is still data. Only the product of your research is information, the original is and will always be just data.
Just as the following list is still elementally data.
123456789.10298497859
219349784.39373893389
389383939.38398393839
849857585.47489748478
What would be information?
The sum (1582048098) or the average or the fact that 9 appeared in the 3rd most significant digit 3 times of 4.
The numbers are still data irrespective of the information derived from them.
2) I count 4 parts to the definition. So you just SKIP Pragmatics here.... since pragmatics is skipped... doesn't that make the definition incomplete, Lincoln? *winks* Why don't you answer the pragmatics issue Lincoln, and avoid using a combination of both DNA and research OR DNA and a process. Just DNA on its own, thank you very much.
Last edited by MrBaggins on 25-04-2002 at 20:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
DNA contains the instructions on how to build a living thing. It tells the cells how much of each protien to make, and when to stop dividing, and when to turn into never cells or skin cells. Man this debate has gotten stuck on weather the code in DNA is data or information. I think of it as information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Thats a nice abitrary decision, Jack... any way of backing that up?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I look at it as a blue print for all living things on earth. I am exculeding virus and prions, I dont think they are alive, but some do think they are alive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
prove instructions themselves have to be information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
So the answer seems to be "evolution did it". That is real nice but no one has shown how it can set up a code along with a translation method along with valid information contained in the code along with a PRAGMATIC result. Pragmatics pure and simple is what DNA oriduces, i.e., a finished product made according to plan contained in the initial information. Simple data cannot do that except as chemical bonds like in a snowflake or crystal. That type of data cannot make a machine with interdependant parts.
Jack TB,
"the "information" contained in starlight, used by astronomers to determine the composition of stars. This is undoubtedly "data", it undoubtedly conveys knowledge to the astronomer, and it undoubtedly has no intelligent originator (unless you're arguing that stars must therefore be intelligent)."
There is no code and no translation and no meaningful information. It is as you said only data.
Etheired,
"The cell is a result of evolution. The code is a result of evolution and human labeling of a chemical process as a code."
That is a statement of belief. The question is the source of the code and the information contained in it. And "labeling" is only for our benefit. The information is there regardless of human labels. We discovered the process, the code and the translation. Any other discovery of that magnitude would have immediately inferred intelligent life. The only reason it does not to an atheist is because he measures all things from his belief system and thinks it is supported by the theist Charles Darwin and his theory. The theory of evolution has never been shown to produce the ORIGIN of life, let alone a code etc.. How does natural selection select a code beofre the translation process is known?
The evidence clearly points to intelligent design, not evolution as the source of true information that exists on the levels under discussion. Data is not information. Information is proved by testing. DNA passes all of the tests.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Simple test:
A. gather seed from plum tree.
B. remove the DNA from the seed and plant it and water it.
C. See what happens.
Now simply plant the seed without removing the DNA and water it after planting. Result: A plum tree. True pragmatics as well as pure apobetics. Can someone falsify this test?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
So the answer seems to be "evolution did it". That is real nice but no one has shown how it can set up a code along with a translation method along with valid information contained in the code along with a PRAGMATIC result. Pragmatics pure and simple is what DNA oriduces, i.e., a finished product made according to plan contained in the initial information. *snip* |
Repeating the same blatantly wrong statement over and over again will never make you right Lincoln.
Answer the following question
Is DNA != DNA+a process? Yes or no
Does DNA act independently? Yes or no
answer the questions.
If the first is no... or the second yes, explain why.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
test B:
A. Turn the radio on and tune it to a station that is on the air and transmitting information (a talk show).
B. Remove the speakers from the radio and instead record the electronic data on a tape.
C. Can you tell if there is intelligent input in that data or not? Yes__No__
If you answered yes tell how you know. If you answered no then you should do some more study on the subject.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Lincoln... C -> Maybe... dependent on whether the being can sense the vibrations from the speaker, process them, and link them conceptually to other stored data
Its also a completely unrealistic analogy comparitively to DNA.
now answer mine
|
|
| |
|
| |
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 08:03
|