The great information debate

[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.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"ALL DNA DOES IS CAUSE REACTIONS TO OCCUR BY VIRTUE OF ELECTRICAL CHARGES!"

That is all a computer does. But it still contains information that is used.

No. Though a computer operates by virtue of electricity, et cetera, it is not this propery which causes a computer to contain information. You can have a computer without memory, a calculator for instance - it will contain no information but still cause things to occur by virtue of electrical charges.

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.

[loinburger]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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]

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.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by loinburger
*snip*
And since it isn't information until a sentient being examines it, it isn't information.

and correlates it with context, which humans are not entirely successful at.

stem cells however... ARE

[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.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
DNA has no processing ability. Only growth mediums, such as stem cells DO.

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.

[MrBaggins]

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?

[MrBaggins]

delete

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
I think its just a bad analogy. Its like comparing chalk and cheese. Not useful.

OK - but it was Lincoln's bad analogy that I just extended.

[MrBaggins]

Come on, Lincoln... its "i'm going to bed." time soon...