The great information debate

[MrBaggins]

Still not information... still just data...

The DNA instructions start from an origin and build out. Each type of cell will have a set size, and partners will also have a dependent on that type... so vectors; shapes essentially can be created, by dumb data, dumb processes with dumb stem-cells.

would you comment on needing to observe a common factor in the DNA data corresponding with a long neck for those genes to be information TO YOU?

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Lincoln
It doesn't matter what we observe or what is information "for us". The information is for the particular organism. It is an information processing system.

no, no, and NO! The only thing that "uses" this information is the chemical laws of the universe.

We only think of it as information because of how we observe it.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
It doesn't matter what we observe or what is information "for us". The information is for the particular organism. It is an information processing system.

Does not have to be information... again can be data... again wishful thinking.

[MrBaggins]

So if DNA is information...


what does

AAAG
GTTA
ACGT

mean?

[MrBaggins]

Eureka... a human examining DNA without any context of where it is from or other examples of DNA provides NO information.

[Lincoln]

If there is no information in DNA then all of biology needs to start from scratch again. There really is no question. I suggest that you look up "DNA,information" on a search engine. We are arguing over a non issue. And please explain the "long neck" problem. I don't understand your point.

Goingonit,

The topic is the SOURCE of information. Yes, chemical laws use it but that does not explain the source.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Eureka... a human examining DNA without any context of where it is from or other examples of DNA provides NO information.

Same with English, or any written information for that matter. That example is fallacious.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
If there is no information in DNA then all of biology needs to start from scratch again. There really is no question. I suggest that you look up "DNA,information" on a search engine. We are arguing over a non issue. And please explain the "long neck" problem. I don't understand your point.

Goingonit,

The topic is the SOURCE of information. Yes, chemical laws use it but that does not explain the source.

No what it means is that DNA is not informational for humans, unless used in a comparitive sense with the real data processing result; the grown beings.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The topic is the SOURCE of information. Yes, chemical laws use it but that does not explain the source.

What you were saying was that DNA's 'information' was 'used' by living things.

My point is that it's not information any more than is a chlorate ion - just a catalyst, albeit one with some special properties. What is the SOURCE of chlorate ions, I ask you?

[MrBaggins]

and DNA doesn't need to start again... it has a set of dumb specific chemical instructions for dumb stem-cells to grow. It would have done so if humans never evolved.

[Lincoln]

Information is used by a computer. Yes__ No__

[MrBaggins]

no.. information can be provided to a computer where it is stored as data. the computer cannot reason, and hence cannot understand information.

[MrBaggins]

The point about the long neck DNA is...

If a human never decerned the particular combination of genes that would result in a long neck, then those genes would be meaningless data to you. but they would be useful data to the stem-cells.

Indeed we understand the effects of very little DNA, so most DNA is meaningless data to us.

[MrBaggins]

delete

[Lincoln]

I hope that you are all looking up "DNA,information". There is no argument really. And yes the information is stored as data but the topic is the source. It uses the information that was entered into it and processes it as data without understanding it. In other words, it uses it.

I agree with your point on the long neck but what is your reason for bringing that up. What exactly is you point? Please spell it out. What are you trying to prove or suggest here?