 |
| |
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Posted by MrBaggins:
"You might want to show how your little experiment is true meaningful information like we have been discussing. Your attempts at evasion are getting boring. You are not proving anything about coded languages and you know full well you are not.
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.
DNA is information that exists on its own just as words in a dictionary exist on their own. The process finds and translates these words and uses them pragmatically. It is a process just as a word processor processes information that is available to it. It is information in its own right. The process uses it. That should answer both questions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
There is an intended intelligent receiver for radio. You have yet to specify who or what the intended intelligent receiver for DNA is. |
Are you going to answer the question? Do that and I will show the relevance so we do not go through 100 more posts defining petty bs that is used for evasion ( I am not talking about you).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
qquote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Posted by MrBaggins:
"You might want to show how your little experiment is true meaningful information like we have been discussing. Your attempts at evasion are getting boring. You are not proving anything about coded languages and you know full well you are not.
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.
DNA is information that exists on its own just as words in a dictionary exist on their own. The process finds and translates these words and uses them pragmatically. It is a process just as a word processor processes information that is available to it. It is information in its own right. The process uses it. That should answer both questions. |
You are trying to tell me that
(DNA != DNA+a process) is false?
You are quite apparently living in a dreamworld.
You provide no proof anywhere in your explanation that DNA is somehow simultaneously both itself and itself and another process.
Show chemical proof
Then you say that the process is pragmatic... not DNA... so you answered the second question incorrectly.
Try again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"You are trying to tell me that.."
No I told you exactly what I meant to tell you. If you want to twist my words then do it on you own. I am not going to engage you in a battle of wits so that you can continue to evade the issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
"You are trying to tell me that.."
No I told you exactly what I meant to tell you. If you want to twist my words then do it on you own. I am not going to engage you in a battle of wits so that you can continue to evade the issue. |
You choose not to answer because you CANNOT answer.
prove chemically, that DNA is both itself and itself and another process simultaneously.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Here is the reason why I think DNA is information, not just data. DNA so to speak has the blueprints for the life form it is in. There are like the blue prints for a house, they have instructions on how to build something, in one case a living thing, and in the other a house. Data would be observations you make or the results of an experiment, all the measurements that you took and recorded.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Here is the reason why I think DNA is information, not just data. DNA so to speak has the blueprints for the life form it is in. There are like the blue prints for a house, they have instructions on how to build something, in one case a living thing, and in the other a house. Data would be observations you make or the results of an experiment, all the measurements that you took and recorded. |
find a analogy of instructions not involving humans, then get back to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Well, since you're apparently not going to answer mine...
The tape contains recorded information, since I know that the radio station I taped off of was transmitting information. |
Thanks for a direct answer. There is another way to know however and this is the method used to sort out "noise" from a valid coded language (all languages are coded btw).
The way it is done is by studying the patterns and order or sequence of the data. For example if it was just; ...................etc.
Or: .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.etc. or it would not prove intelligent input. If it was pure random it would also not prove intelligent input, i.e., ..--.-.-.------..--------........--.-.-.-----.----.-.-.-.----.....---.-.-.-.-. etc.
Intelligence is inferred when a true code is found. It would be very easy even with no knowledge of the English language to find evidence of intelligence in the radio transmission just as it would be simple to study the 1's and 0's on this forum and find evidence of intelligence. The genetic code is evidence of intelligence. If it was only random or not translated or endless repeats of the same letter then it would be evidence of simply the laws of physics without an intelligent inferrence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
*snip*If it was only random or not translated or endless repeats of the same letter then it would be evidence of simply the laws of physics without an intelligent inferrence. |
Its already been proved that random data (especially permutational) can be interpretted as meaningful information. (and using a natural source too) Try again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
We have. That's how evolution works. If the molecules couldn't replicate then there wouldn't more more of them. You're the only one calling chemistry a "code."
It's called chemistry. Add HCl to Zinc, and you get hydrogen and zinc-chloride.
Simple data does do it--it's called DNA replication.
There is a code--the photons. There is translation--applying the data from these photons to the equations derived from astrophysicists. There is meaningful information that results--the positions and compositions of distant stars.
Yes, and Jack TB is saying that there is no source. You're ignoring his answer by dismissing it as "belief," regardless of the fact tha this answer is experimentally verified while your belief that there is an intelligent source has not been verified.
What intelligence is reading this information? Information requires an intelligent receiver, does it not? Who is the intended receiver?
Easy. Natural processes produce a multitude of "codes," and only the codes that can be successfully translated are kept. The others naturally break down.
Who is the intended receiver of the information? |
No, you are twisting my words. I did not say that "chemistry is a code". Please do not evade by creating a strawman. Have you ever heard of the "genetic code"? I call a code what everyone else calls a code except those on this thread who are evading the issue bu creating strawmen.
There is no language in simple chemical reactions and no code in the sense of translation into meaning. If that is what you are saying then you are completely denying the existence of language and intelligent communication. You need to study up on information. It is a seperate science which you seem to ignore.
Also I explained who (what) is reading the code. mRNA "reads" it and so do we. And your speculation on how hatural selection makes a code is wishful thinking without proof. The sending and receiving is set up in the origination of the coded language. I can send the language to book (so to speak). It is received when it is read. The language is inherent in the genetic code. The sender and receiver are the process of reading and translating and using it for work. This is the same method that computers use. One has coded instructions that it sends to another which can interpret those instructions and use them practically. The ocde is set up by intelligence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Well, lunch break is over. . . Be sure and do your homework everyone so we don't have to keep covering the same ground.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
The genetic code is evidence of intelligence. If it was only random or not translated or endless repeats of the same letter then it would be evidence of simply the laws of physics without an intelligent inferrence. |
If it were random then it would be evidence that there were no natural selection. However, since there is natural selection, the DNA sequences are non-random--the DNA sequences that are best at replicating themselves are the DNA sequences that survive into the next generation.
It is just the laws of physics. Look at water--it's pretty common. Hydrogen peroxide, on the other hand, is not nearly as common. Why would this be, when both molecules contain nothing but hydrogen and oxygen? Well, it's because water is a more stable molecular configuration than hydrogen peroxide.
DNA is a fairly stable molecule despite its size, due to the fact that carbon chains are inherently pretty stable. However, they're not the most stable molecules around, so for the most part they're eventually going to be broken down into simpler molecules (unlike water, which doesn't get much simpler). Therefore, one DNA strand does not become more common than another due solely to its more stable molecular configuation. However, the analogy with water and hydrogen peroxide comes into play when DNA strands attempt to replicate themselves--the DNA strand that is most capable of replicating itself is going to be the most common strand. Water doesn't need to replicate itself since it's already a very stable molecular configuration, nor is water complex enough to be able to replicate itself. DNA is an order of magnitude more complex than water, but it all boils down to chemistry--the DNA strands that are most capable of replicating themselves are the DNA strands that are the most common, by virtue of the fact that failed DNA strands are eventualy broken down.
Now, the fact that there is more water than hydrogen peroxide is not an instance of intelligent design. The fact that one piece of DNA survives and another breaks does is, at the same time, not an instance of intelligent design. Water is more common because it has a stable molecular configuation, certain pieces of DNA are more common because they are better able to replicate themselves. DNA is non-random because randomly generated DNA has a low probability of being able to replicate itself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
No, you are twisting my words. I did not say that "chemistry is a code". Please do not evade by creating a strawman. Have you ever heard of the "genetic code"? I call a code what everyone else calls a code except those on this thread who are evading the issue bu creating strawmen. |
Fine, I'll call it a code too. Just don't take this to mean that I'm calling it information--it's information when a human looks at it.
quote:
There is no language in simple chemical reactions and no code in the sense of translation into meaning. If that is what you are saying then you are completely denying the existence of language and intelligent communication. You need to study up on information. It is a seperate science which you seem to ignore. |
You've said all along that information requires an intelligent receiver. If mRNA is intelligent, why can't zinc chloride be intelligent as well?
quote:
Also I explained who (what) is reading the code. mRNA "reads" it and so do we. |
mRNA is not intelligent. Since mRNA is the intended receiver of the data, there is no communication taking place. Therefore, DNA is not information, merely data that can be applied by mindless automata like mRNA--information requires an intelligent receiver.
quote:
And your speculation on how hatural selection makes a code is wishful thinking without proof. |
Well sure, if you're going to ignore the example of genetic algorithms that make code through natural selection. Everything turns into speculation as soon as you start ignoring evidence, so if I can't stop you from ignoring the evidence I show, I certainly can't stop you from calling my claims based on that evidence "speculation."
quote:
The sending and receiving is set up in the origination of the coded language. |
Again, mRNA is not intelligent, so it doesn't understand diddly-squat about languages.
quote:
The language is inherent in the genetic code. The sender and receiver are the process of reading and translating and using it for work. |
mRNA is non-intelligent, so saying that it understands language is false.
quote:
This is the same method that computers use. One has coded instructions that it sends to another which can interpret those instructions and use them practically. The ocde is set up by intelligence. |
Computers are no more intelligent than mRNA. Furthermore, if you give a program a few simple rules (analogous to laws of physics) and give it a simple GA (again, analogous to laws of physics), then eventually it'll spit out an answer (analogous to the output spit out by DNA replication, another organism). Intelligence was required to give the computer the simple rules before it began to process the GA, but intelligence was not required to actually design the intermediate steps of the GA (which would be analogous to self-replicating DNA strands). The intermediate steps of the GA are not information since the intermediate steps do not have an intelligent receiver (the computer is non-intelligent), just as the intermediate steps of evolution (DNA strands, to stick with the analogy) are not information since they do not have an intelligent receiver (mRNA is non-intelligent).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Fine, I'll call it a code too. Just don't take this to mean that I'm calling it information--it's information when a human looks at it.
You've said all along that information requires an intelligent receiver. If mRNA is intelligent, why can't zinc chloride be intelligent as well?
mRNA is not intelligent. Since mRNA is the intended receiver of the data, there is no communication taking place. Therefore, DNA is not information, merely data that can be applied by mindless automata like mRNA--information requires an intelligent receiver.
Well sure, if you're going to ignore the example of genetic algorithms that make code through natural selection. Everything turns into speculation as soon as you start ignoring evidence, so if I can't stop you from ignoring the evidence I show, I certainly can't stop you from calling my claims based on that evidence "speculation."
Again, mRNA is not intelligent, so it doesn't understand diddly-squat about languages.
mRNA is non-intelligent, so saying that it understands language is false.
Computers are no more intelligent than mRNA. Furthermore, if you give a program a few simple rules (analogous to laws of physics) and give it a simple GA (again, analogous to laws of physics), then eventually it'll spit out an answer (analogous to the output spit out by DNA replication, another organism). Intelligence was required to give the computer the simple rules before it began to process the GA, but intelligence was not required to actually design the intermediate steps of the GA (which would be analogous to self-replicating DNA strands). The intermediate steps of the GA are not information since the intermediate steps do not have an intelligent receiver (the computer is non-intelligent), just as the intermediate steps of evolution (DNA strands, to stick with the analogy) are not information since they do not have an intelligent receiver (mRNA is non-intelligent). |
Okay loinburger I think I see the issue that prevents us from communicating. First, thanks for helping to turn this into a reasonable discussion in the midst of spam.
Your first statement (“it's information when a human looks at it.”) is true as far as human communication goes. It is true as was pointed out in the first page of this thread that there is no meaning unless there is one assigned and there is agreement between the sender and receiver as to the meaning. So if I am postulating that an intelligent being (God) made the initial code then that would be the same as if you or I made a coded language and assigned meaning to the symbols etc.. Then that coded language (say the Morse code) could be used to convey true information when it was used by two people who understand the meaning of the symbols, grammar etc.. I am saying that the originator of the code was an intelligent being that had the ability to do what Morse did. He did it all by himself by using his mind. There does not need to be a sender and receiver to devise a language or code. There only needs to be convention between the parties that ultimately USE the coded language. The existence of the coded language complete with rules (of course) is evidence of a thought process that exists in an individual (at the least). Because the topic is “origins” then I have answered the question by resorting to common experience, i.e., There is no known code that has arisin without intelligent reasoning. There are no exceptions without resorting to the circular argument that evolution did it therefore it is an exception. He who proposes that “evolution did it” has the burden of proof on his shoulders. He is the one proposing an exception to the established rule that has no known exceptions.
Your comments about the non intelligence of mRNA etc. are irrelevant to the subject of origin of the coded information as I explained above because a computer is obviously non intelligent but it uses the intelligence fed into it. The practical application and manipulation of DNA within the cell proves it is more than random and more that mere order. Whether you call it information or not the point is THE SOURCE. Nevertheless there is a sender and receiver even in the cell that sends and receives the information that is within it as I showed previously. The cell is like a computer that operates on information. However you define information once it is out of the mind of the originator the automatic or natural processes that take over does not annul the fact of the origin that is in fact, information.
Your computer analogy is correct in one sense in that it is not intelligent. Neither is DNA intelligent. But both contain information. In the GA example the key is “a few simple rules”. That is what a language is – a few simple rules. Without the rules there is no language. As was shown on the first page, a genetic algorithm is not information unless there is convention or an understanding of meaning. A GA needs not only simple rules but it needs intelligent input to give the meaning to the receiver of the information. This program for the sender and receiver is formulated in the mind. The rules and coordination are the result of a mental process. Without that mental reasoning ability the GA just cranks out data. With the mental input it can use the information that it was given (refer to page 1). Summary:
1. The fundamental quality of information is non material. It is a mental process.
2. Information can only arise through an intentional volitional act.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Welcome back Lincoln.
Now prove chemically, that DNA is both itself and itself and another process simultaneously.
If you cannot... then you accept that.. DNA is not DNA + a process and you are incorrect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Off to watch Oceans 11. back in a bit
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
So the spam man is back. I am not taking the bait. Sorry, you will have to satisfy yourself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
We could look at the code DNA uses to build protiens as a lanuage. It is used to transmit information to other parts of the cell on how to make protiens. To me it seems very reasonable to say that this information or what ever you like to call it has an intelligent scource behind it. I have never seen the information contained in a book come about by means that do no involve an intelligent scource. And why cant we use example of information when humans are behind it? What is so wrong with that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
If you look at the writings of those who think that evolution is the answer to all of life's questions (such as Richard Dawkins) you will find that they use plenty of analogies to prove their points. What is good for the goose is good for the gandor. Human analogies are entirely appropriate because humans are an obvious source of intelligence. In the subject of information in view of the ubiquitous involvement of intelligence (in humans) it is no less than denial to pretend that an intelligent mental process is not the key ingredient in information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I think someone already posted a definition of data and information. I looked up both terms in the dictionary I have. It is the American Heritage Dictionary.
Data:
1.) Factual information, esp. information organized for analysis or used to make decisions
2.)Numerical information suitable for processing by computer.
Information:
1.)Knowlegde derived from study or experience.
2.)Knowlegde of an event or situation; intelligence.
3.)A collection of facts or data.
4.)Informing or being informed; communication of knowledge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
It seems to me from these defenitions that data and information are closely related to each other.
Even data is organized by an intelligent agent.
|
|
| |
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 23:32
|