The great information debate

[MrBaggins]

Not on the originating end.

[Lincoln]

Both parts have to originate somehow. The origin of the sender is of no use without a receiver and the origin of the receiver is of no use without a sender. Either way you require intelligence to solve the problem

[MrBaggins]

You are getting away from the example.

The originator is a computer algorithm.

A computer algorithm is not intelligent.

This algorithm does not even contain conditional statements.

Only iteration and function statements.

It originated meaningless information which had meaning to you.

[loinburger]

Lincoln:

If I drop a grapefruit on the ground and it splatters, I have gained at least two pieces of information: grapefruit falls down, and grapefruit splatters. However, grapefruit is not intelligent; I have assigned meaning to the events that took place when the grapefruit was dropped, but the grapefruit did not intend to convey this information to me (since it is an inanimate object and cannot intend anything).

[Lincoln]

The question was whether "meaningful" information could be produced by machine without intelligent input. The answer is no.

The originator is a human programmer. The argorithm was devised by a human and the meaning must be understood by a human or a machine invented by a human. We are not taking about the laws of physics which cause atoms to associate according to those laws. A computer can use those laws and give appropriate results. But when we are talking about meaningful information then there must be an agreement between two intelligent agents or machines created by an intelligent agent.

[loinburger]

The argorithm was devised by a human and the meaning must be understood by a human or a machine invented by a human.

Perhaps you can translate this for me then...

jby38zjfy kao9 al

...because my algorithm spit it out, and since it's an intelligent source of information I just know that there's some meaning to this phrase...

[Lincoln]

Yes loinburger but there is no communication between you and the grapfruit. Also you have still not eliminated the intelligent agent. Someone has to assign the meaning at some point. And the point of this discussion is the nature of information that is in coded form in DNA. The communication within the cell has real meaning because it produces specific results.

[MrBaggins]

actually... no.

The fact that the algorithm had an inventor is irrelevent.

The algorithm is incapable of reason or comprehension.

This is because it remembers NOTHING

This is because it decides NOTHING

notice that the BASIC program does not store anything or use any conditions.

I am only using a computer as an example because we can all imagine a computer and all duplicate the situation

Another way of carrying out the proceedure would be to use atomic decay.

[MrBaggins]

IE The basic program cannot learn or know or understand anything all it does is an automaton process.

[Lincoln]

"...because my algorithm spit it out, and since it's an intelligent source of information I just know that there's some meaning to this phrase..."

Well you are proving my point then. There is no meaning until you assign one.

[TCO]

Lincoln!

How's it going, man? How was Thailand. What made you decide to go there. Do you have a Thai gf now? Are you back?

[MrBaggins]

The dictionary definition of intelligence

in·tel·li·gence Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jns)
n.

The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
The faculty of thought and reason.
Superior powers of mind. See Synonyms at mind.
An intelligent, incorporeal being, especially an angel.
Information; news. See Synonyms at news.

Secret information, especially about an actual or potential enemy.
An agency, staff, or office employed in gathering such information.
Espionage agents, organizations, and activities considered as a group: “Intelligence is nothing if not an institutionalized black market in perishable commodities” (John le Carré).

[MrBaggins]

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

[loinburger]

Yes loinburger but there is no communication between you and the grapfruit.

Nor is there communication between a biologist and a DNA sequence. The DNA is just as stupid as the grapefruit.

Also you have still not eliminated the intelligent agent.

That was never the intention of Baggins either. The intention was to eliminate the intelligent information source.

Someone has to assign the meaning at some point.

This was never under contention.

And the point of this discussion is the nature of information that is in coded form in DNA.

My point is that a grapefruit is every bit as stupid as a DNA molecule.

The communication within the cell has real meaning because it produces specific results.

So the communication between a postive and negative magnetic pole has real meaning because it produces specific results?

[Lincoln]

If you are right MrBaggins then that is why it cannot produce meaningful information. If it is more complicated than you suggest then it can produce information with the meaning that you assigned it. Either way it requires intelligent input to produce meaningful information.