The great information debate

[MrBaggins]

Define how the the algorithm is intelligent according to:

the capacity to aquire and apply knowledge
the faculty of thought and reason.

[Lincoln]

"This was never under contention."

This is the whole purpose of this thread -- to determine if intelligent input is required in the formation of the DNA code and the specified information contained within it.

[MrBaggins]

I'm getting to the DNA. Stop avoiding. Prove the intelligence of the algorithm or admit that you cannot, and we'll move on to the DNA.

[Lincoln]

I don't claim that it is intelligent.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I don't agree but let's say that you are right. You still require an intelligent agent to establish meaningfull communication.

This proves that DNA's 'information' is not the same type of 'information' as this post.

This post, as an example, only becomes information if someoone (say, for argument's sake, you) read it. DNA creates amino acids, et cetera only by virtue of the laws of the universe.

I am not going into the "what is consciousness" question that this begs, because nobody has a satisfactory answer to that.

[loinburger]

Either way it requires intelligent input to produce meaningful information.

It requires intelligent processing, not intelligent input. The computer has no idea what it's spitting out.

[Lincoln]

Hi GP,

Thailand was great. I might retire there someday. I have some friends that I write to. One is very pretty but who knows what will come of it.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Goingonit


This proves that DNA's 'information' is not the same type of 'information' as this post.

This post, as an example, only becomes information if someoone (say, for argument's sake, you) read it. DNA creates amino acids, et cetera only by virtue of the laws of the universe.

I am not going into the "what is consciousness" question that this begs, because nobody has a satisfactory answer to that.

Wrong actually... I have just proved an unintelligent agent has produced information that has become meaningful information.

We'll get to DNA later.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
This is the whole purpose of this thread -- to determine if intelligent input is required in the formation of the DNA code and the specified information contained within it.

Yes, and it was never under contention that an intelligent agent is needed to interpret information. DNA is not intelligent, therefore it cannot interpret information. Humans are intelligent, therefore they can interpret information.

[MrBaggins]

Are we all agreed that the originator AND the original information WAS NOT INTELLIGENT

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by MrBaggins

Wrong actually... I have just proved an unintelligent agent has produced information that has become meaningful information.

We'll get to DNA later.

Yes - I get your point. Information is meaningful based on the recipient.

DNA requires no recipient to interpret, thus it is not "meaningful information" in the same sense.

[Lincoln]

"AHAH... but the algorithm produced the information BEFORE it became meaningful information"

That doesn't matter. It still was meaningless until you are another intelligent agent assigned it meaning. I could for example make a language out of naturally forming crystals. But it still requires an intelligent agen to assign meaning to that which formed spontaneously.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln

"AHAH... but the algorithm produced the information BEFORE it became meaningful information"

That doesn't matter. It still was meaningless until you are another intelligent agent assigned it meaning.

Look at his post again, you're repeating what he just said.

[MrBaggins]

Yes... thats true... but the originator was not intelligent. Only the RECEIVER... yes?

[Lincoln]

Actually the point that remains regardless is that I answered the questions correctly that were posed by MrBaggins in the first post.