The great information debate

[MrBaggins]

The first version was ambiguous because of time. I have altered the situation to remove the ambiguity.

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.

Yes... thats true... but in the situation provided... the locked up computer and you making the word up, the originator was not intelligent. Only the RECEIVER was intelligent... yes?

[Lincoln]

"but the originator was not intelligent. Only the RECEIVER... yes?"

The origination was only order not meaningful information. It only gained meaning after you assigned meaning to it. Or you assigned meaning before you started it. It was not information in other words until you made it information.

[MrBaggins]

Yes... thats true... but in the situation provided... the locked up computer and you making the word up, the originator was not intelligent. Only the RECEIVER was intelligent... yes or no?

only answer yes or no

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"but the originator was not intelligent. Only the RECEIVER... yes?"

The origination was only order not meaningful information. It only gained meaning after you assigned meaning to it. Or you assigned meaning before you started it. It was not information in other words until you made it information.

And the same is true with DNA.

[loinburger]

It was not information in other words until you made it information.

Which is exactly why DNA does not require an encoder.

Edit: Cross-post. Goingonit beat me to it.

[Lincoln]

"only answer yes or no"

Sorry buddy but that is not a yes or no answer. I already ansered as briefly as I could.

[MrBaggins]

this is all true, but i'm just stepping through the proof.

[MrBaggins]

was the originator intelligent? yes or no.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Sorry buddy but that is not a yes or no answer. I already ansered as briefly as I could.

If you're going to turn to semantics to save you, then replace "information" with "data." The non-intelligent source produces data, the intelligent receiver turns this into information. The point, as always, is that the source is non-intelligent.

[Lincoln]

one way to test the program to see if it really does contain meaningful information is to run it again and see if the next run actually goes to bed.

[MrBaggins]

rule 5 no humor

[MrBaggins]

you're doing really well with this experiment... don't fall asleep now... you might never wake up.

[Lincoln]

"If you're going to turn to semantics to save you, then replace "information" with "data."

Actually that is a very good point. I think that the word "information" is used far too loosely. We should define it to avoid confusion.

[MrBaggins]

yep... ok the algorithm produces data... which you perceive as information.

the sender however, was not intelligent.

[Lincoln]

Sorry everyone, it's been fun but I will have to catch up tomorrow. I am going to bod. *dam algotithim it still can't spell*