The great information debate

[Lincoln]

Quote:

"You need an intelligent end receiver to call it a "code" under your definition, otherwise you don't have pragmatics. I'm still waiting for a valid counterexample."

No, there only needs to be an intelligent source in order to assign meaning. If the code is intended for use by a machine then the intention is satisfied if the machine works. This is pragmatics pure and simple. Anyway we have gone over this about 4 or 5 times so why waste more thread space going over it again.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The point is not the watchmaker argument but what evidence is proof of intelligent design whatsoever. Etheired answered the direct question with the word, "No,. .."

What question was that? The robot question? I said that robots don't grow. Therefore from the robot we know a inteligence was involved.

DNA evolves and that is provable. It doesn't need a maker to have an increase in information. You are trying to treat it as a if had a known inteligent maker and you must prove that first. That it has data useful to the life form is not in question. That an inteligence must be involved is.

This has nothing to do with any analogy of a watchmaker at all. The point is that no evidence whatsoever will lead someone with a preconceived belief system to even admit an obvious inferrence of intelligence by the discovery of a robot. A logical answer to the question would have began with: "Yes", but..."

No the logical answer is the one I REALY gave. You analogy is not relevant to DNA. No anology depending on humans or aliens, which is the same thing, can be directly applied to DNA. At the very least you must at least prove relevance. All you did with the alien code is bring up another civilization than a human one.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Quote:
No, there only needs to be an intelligent source in order to assign meaning. If the code is intended for use by a machine then the intention is satisfied if the machine works. This is pragmatics pure and simple. Anyway we have gone over this about 4 or 5 times so why waste more thread space going over it again.

The DNA code isn't intended for use by a machine. It isn't intended for use in the human sense in the first place. The only pragmatic thing going on is that the ribosome is using the data in the DNA. The ribosome is what decides what it means. Not the DNA, the DNA doesn't have a care at all about what it means.

[Lincoln]

So Etheired, you cannot even admit that you made a mistake. I think we should move on. There are only 79 posts left on this thread and I want to let you all make your case before the thread is closed. I have already rested my case and it has been repeated several times.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
So Etheired, you cannot even admit that you made a mistake. I think we should move on. There are only 79 posts left on this thread and I want to let you all make your case before the thread is closed. I have already rested my case and it has been repeated several times.

How about you quote this alleged mistake. I notice that I get accused of saying things that I didn't at a rather excessive rate. I also notice that you chose to claim I said 'no' without quoting it.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Lincoln:

Not if that language was found in the inner workings of a robot that was determined to work fine as the result of that programmed language. That would still be evidence of intelligent life even if the intended receiver of that language was an information based machine. Would that be the case? Yes__ No__

loinburger's answer:

No, the alien race would be the end receiver for the robot's work, just like a human user is the end receiver for a program's output. Find another example.

edit: Sorry Etheired. I thought you made that response. I edited it and put in loinburger's name.

[Lincoln]

Actually I made a mistake. It got loinburger confused with Etheired.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Ethelred


The DNA code isn't intended for use by a machine. It isn't intended for use in the human sense in the first place. The only pragmatic thing going on is that the ribosome is using the data in the DNA. The ribosome is what decides what it means. Not the DNA, the DNA doesn't have a care at all about what it means.

Well the DNA code happens to be in a biological machine. So there is no reason to believe that it had another purpose. And yes, it is pragmatics when the information actually works as it does when translated by the ribosome.

The entire system is necessary for the information in DNA to be useful but I don't see how that proves that it doesn't work.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
No, there only needs to be an intelligent source in order to assign meaning.

I've asked you for an example of a code that doesn't require a receiver. In fact, I've asked you for this about a dozen times now. You obviously don't have an example of such a code, Lincoln, or at the very least you haven't yet provided an example of a code that doesn't require an intelligent intended receiver.

Give me one example of a coded language that has no intended receiver, Lincoln. You've been avoiding this question for over a hundred posts now, it's about time that you answered it.

If the code is intended for use by a machine then the intention is satisfied if the machine works.

Who is supposed to receive the output from the machine? Your continued ignorance is extremely frustrating, Lincoln. Give me an example of a program in which there is no intelligent receiver for its output, or in which there is no output for the program. Give me an example of a single coded language that has no intelligent intelligent receiver.

Guess what: You can't! You haven't come up with an example, and you never will! All you'll ever be able to do is blatantly misinterpret my posts in the hopes that your bald-faced lies will save you.

This is pragmatics pure and simple. Anyway we have gone over this about 4 or 5 times so why waste more thread space going over it again.

You've ignored my point at least 4 or 5 times, probably more. You've yet to provide a single example of a coded language that does not have an intelligent intended receiver, nor have you yet said what the intelligent intended receiver for DNA is. Why have you avoided my question for over a hundred posts now, Lincoln? Could it be that you have no viable answer to my question, and use ad hominem attacks when you find yourself short on evidence?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
And yes, it is pragmatics when the information actually works as it does when translated by the ribosome.

Is there an intelligent intended receiver for life? Either show me an intelligent intended receiver, or show me a single code that doesn't have an intelligent intended receiver! Stop ignoring the point, you ignorant twit!

[Lincoln]

Have you ever heard of a broken record?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I have already rested my case and it has been repeated several times.

You rested your case after you decided that you didn't have the mental competence to answer my questions. If you can't show me an intelligent intended receiver for DNA, or if you can't even provide a single example of "coded language" that has no intelligent intended receiver, then you have no pragmatics, thus you have no "code", thus you've been blowing smoke out of your ass for over four hundred posts now.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Have you ever heard of a broken record?

Have you ever heard of a Creationist who is so incompetent that he can't even answer a single question, Lincoln? Because I certainly have. Who is the intelligent intended receiver for DNA? What is an example of a coded language that has no intelligent intended receiver? I've been waiting for an answer for quite awhile now, Lincoln. An answer would be most welcome.

[Lincoln]

Anyway the term "broken record" comes from an era when music was recorded on a plastic disk. If the record cracked then the same line kept repeating itself, e.g., "intelligent receiver, intelligent receiver, intelligent receiver"... etc.

When that happened to a record it was best to throw it out and get a new one that made sense. You do not even see a robot as an example of intelligent design so you are beyond the reach of logic. You might want to consider the other people on this thread who might want to answer some legitimate questions that have been raised before we reach the 500 post limit here.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You do not even see a robot as an example of intelligent design so you are beyond the reach of logic.

Your blatant lies are getting pretty ridiculous, Lincoln. If you can't come up with a single example of a coded language that doesn't have an intelligent intended receiver, then say so. But don't try to cover your tracks by lying, because it really makes you look bad.

You might want to consider the other people on this thread who might want to answer some legitimate questions that have been raised before we reach the 500 post limit here.

You still haven't answered my questions, Lincoln. Presumably, this is because you're not capable of answering them. If you can't even explain why DNA fits your definition of "information," then how can you possibly explain how DNA fits their definition of information?

The fact that you continue to avoid the question is damning enough. You are obviously incapable of answering it.