The great information debate

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Then it is true information because it produced the desired results. You have tested it and proved it as containing valid information. Congratulations!

There were no desired results. Cells have no desires. The only reason why they replicate is that if they didn't they wouldn't exist.

You declare victory where there is none.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The cell is the result of a code that was set up by an intelligent being.

The cell is a result of evolution. The code is a result of evolution and human labeling of a chemical process as a code.

The proof is in the code and the translation and the result of that translation. And the north pole thing is irrelevant.

There is no proof there. Only Zuul.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lincoln:

I still don't see any point to this. What is the substance of your objection?

So far, it seems that you're still hung up on the artificial nature of some of the analogies being used. Try my example mentioned on the other thread: the "information" contained in starlight, used by astronomers to determine the composition of stars. This is undoubtedly "data", it undoubtedly conveys knowledge to the astronomer, and it undoubtedly has no intelligent originator (unless you're arguing that stars must therefore be intelligent).

The ability of evolution to increase the "information" content of a genome is quite straightforward and verified by observation: mutation creates random variation, natural selection eliminates harmful traits and propagates useful ones, leading to a relentless accumulation of useful traits over time.

It seems that your sole refutation of this consists of a repetition of Gitt's rules as some sort of mantra. Lincoln, you are making a very bold claim here. You're not just saying that an intelligent being MIGHT have tinkered with the process, but that such a being MUST have. Such a claim requires evidence, and "Gitt says so" isn't evidence. Furthermore, "intelligent beings use codes" isn't decisive evidence either: it's like saying "because humans use fire, all fires must be started by humans". No matter how many fires you mention (campfires, bonfires, candles, oxyacetylene blowtorches, jet exhausts), you cannot use such examples to prove that NO natural phenomenon can start a fire.

[MrBaggins]

Let me include the the prequisite statements to the definition of data that you already agreed to

Data on its own has no meaning, only when interpreted by some kind of data processing system does it take on meaning and become information.

People or computers can find patterns in data to perceive information, and information can be used to enhance knowledge. Since knowledge is prerequisite to wisdom, we always want more data and information. But, as modern societies verge on information overload, we especially need better ways to find patterns.

Originally posted by Lincoln
Talk about semantic tricks MrBaggins. You seem to be trying to avoid the obvious by playing games with definitions and word parsing.

LOLOL... you're the one parsing it for evasional purposes. Answer the pragmatic issue in one discrete post. Please. Include ONLY DNA. Do not include DNA->process or DNA->analysis.

DNA does contain "dumb data". There is no magic involved in its random formation nor is their an intelligent source required when that data is being processed. I never said differently. So does a computer which has been programmed by an intelligent being contain “dumb data” and the processing precedes (usually) without intelligent input. So why do you find it necessary to continually evade the obvious?

Here you say DNA is dumb data. Good you finally get it.

Regarding the rest, nice try but no... the primary dataprocessng of DNA occured with a dumb process of initial translation (those pesky stem cells.)

“The point” which I thought you were finally getting (which I think you understand clearly in spite of your evasion) is that an intelligent being is required for true information to exist whether it is in the form of “dumb data”, chemical bonds or audible speech or the exchange of e-mails by two living intelligent beings.

Natural Selection through environment IS the intelligence, although we are jumping ahead in a big way... I just hadn't gotten there yet. It imposes complex conditions. Process Reason is imposed by sighted animals being more successful that blind (generally speaking). Process Memory is created by only the successful animals survival. Process Knowledge is created by breeding, and fauna and flora interaction.
Intelligent process but no sign of a strawman.

The point is still, unfortunately for you... is DNA on its own... data? yep.

This entire forum is made up of “dumb data” but it is obvious proof that intelligent agents are behind the data. This forum is also full of information yet you would for some reason evade that issue.

Irrelevent side track to attempt to prove what?

Now let’s discuss exactly what the “dumb data” in DNA is doing:

A. It is sitting there full of information just like a book sitting on a shelf, unread, contains information. The reason that even the unread book contains information is because the coded language that is contained in the book has been broken and it has been proved to contain real information. The book is therefore prima facie evidence of intelligent life. Now there is no reason to go into the philosophical argument about a tree falling in the woods with no one around to see it. If that is where you are anyone else is going then you are on the wrong thread.

*Boing*... you jump to an irrelevent analogy. A book is different from DNA. Books were created by us to be used by us. DNA was created by nature for the solve purpose of perpetuating life. It is well defined as data. I also proved that a book does not always contain data.

The data in DNA is in coded form. The code has been broken.

through data-processing analysis means.

AUG means Methionine. UGG means Tryptophan. And the other available triplets made up of the for base letters ((ACUG) all have real meanings. Even when the DNA is in a dead organism it has meaning and it contains information. AUG means Methionine just like “boy” means young man. The code in DNA has meaning to both us and to the machinery in the cell.

The research only has meaning to us as so far as them being particular proteins. A printed list of one DNA writen as letters could tell you NOTHING. Only through context do they have any informational purpose. Only through context of the product of dataprocessing in life can we connect them meaningly. This is data-processing.

B. DNA in a living organism is translated. The formation of the letters b,o,y have no meaning until meaning is assigned to them by both the sender and receiver. The letters UGG have meaning when the triplet is translated. There is agreement between the sender and receiver.

C. DNA has information within it that makes things when it is translated and put to work. An instruction book has real practical value when it is read and the instructions are followed by a builder. Those instructions may be entered into a machine and the machine can follow them and also make things. DNA instructions are read by mRNA and translated using tRNA and rRNA where it is formed into a viable product that has a specific function in building, maintaining, regulating or reproducing the organism. DNA is proved to be a coded language because of its practical value. It has the same practical value as an instruction book has. It contains information.


D. The information contained in DNA has a purpose or goal [apobetics]. Even in a seed the DNA contains the instructions that will make an apple tree or whatever. When those instructions are read by mRNA and put to work with the rest of the biological machinery then an apple tree is inevitable. It will not become instead a frog or a prince. The specified order of DNA produces specified results. There is a goal even if the purpose is not achieved (through accident etc.).


So we have all of the key ingredients of information contained in DNA. 1. Statics. 2. Syntax 3. Semantics. 4. Pragmatics. 5. Apobetics.
*snip*

Two things are happening here...

1) You are defining DNA as information. A clever attempt at jumping from one definition to another... although not unnoticed by me. How did it suddenly jump from being DATA to INFORMATION... well... you want it as information, so you've used an example of the result of study of DNA. If you examine DNA for patterns, you create information regarding DNA... the DNA itself is still data. Only the product of your research is information, the original is and will always be just data.

Just as the following list is still elementally data.

123456789.10298497859
219349784.39373893389
389383939.38398393839
849857585.47489748478

What would be information?
The sum (1582048098) or the average or the fact that 9 appeared in the 3rd most significant digit 3 times of 4.

The numbers are still data irrespective of the information derived from them.

2) I count 4 parts to the definition. So you just SKIP Pragmatics here.... since pragmatics is skipped... doesn't that make the definition incomplete, Lincoln? *winks* Why don't you answer the pragmatics issue Lincoln, and avoid using a combination of both DNA and research OR DNA and a process. Just DNA on its own, thank you very much.

[Jack_www]

DNA contains the instructions on how to build a living thing. It tells the cells how much of each protien to make, and when to stop dividing, and when to turn into never cells or skin cells. Man this debate has gotten stuck on weather the code in DNA is data or information. I think of it as information.

[MrBaggins]

Thats a nice abitrary decision, Jack... any way of backing that up?

[Jack_www]

I look at it as a blue print for all living things on earth. I am exculeding virus and prions, I dont think they are alive, but some do think they are alive.

[MrBaggins]

prove instructions themselves have to be information.

[Lincoln]

So the answer seems to be "evolution did it". That is real nice but no one has shown how it can set up a code along with a translation method along with valid information contained in the code along with a PRAGMATIC result. Pragmatics pure and simple is what DNA oriduces, i.e., a finished product made according to plan contained in the initial information. Simple data cannot do that except as chemical bonds like in a snowflake or crystal. That type of data cannot make a machine with interdependant parts.

Jack TB,

"the "information" contained in starlight, used by astronomers to determine the composition of stars. This is undoubtedly "data", it undoubtedly conveys knowledge to the astronomer, and it undoubtedly has no intelligent originator (unless you're arguing that stars must therefore be intelligent)."

There is no code and no translation and no meaningful information. It is as you said only data.

Etheired,

"The cell is a result of evolution. The code is a result of evolution and human labeling of a chemical process as a code."

That is a statement of belief. The question is the source of the code and the information contained in it. And "labeling" is only for our benefit. The information is there regardless of human labels. We discovered the process, the code and the translation. Any other discovery of that magnitude would have immediately inferred intelligent life. The only reason it does not to an atheist is because he measures all things from his belief system and thinks it is supported by the theist Charles Darwin and his theory. The theory of evolution has never been shown to produce the ORIGIN of life, let alone a code etc.. How does natural selection select a code beofre the translation process is known?

The evidence clearly points to intelligent design, not evolution as the source of true information that exists on the levels under discussion. Data is not information. Information is proved by testing. DNA passes all of the tests.

[Lincoln]

Simple test:

A. gather seed from plum tree.

B. remove the DNA from the seed and plant it and water it.

C. See what happens.

Now simply plant the seed without removing the DNA and water it after planting. Result: A plum tree. True pragmatics as well as pure apobetics. Can someone falsify this test?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
So the answer seems to be "evolution did it". That is real nice but no one has shown how it can set up a code along with a translation method along with valid information contained in the code along with a PRAGMATIC result. Pragmatics pure and simple is what DNA oriduces, i.e., a finished product made according to plan contained in the initial information. *snip*

Repeating the same blatantly wrong statement over and over again will never make you right Lincoln.


Answer the following question

Is DNA != DNA+a process? Yes or no
Does DNA act independently? Yes or no


answer the questions.

If the first is no... or the second yes, explain why.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Simple test:

A. gather seed from plum tree.

B. remove the DNA from the seed and plant it and water it.

C. See what happens.

Now simply plant the seed without removing the DNA and water it after planting. Result: A plum tree. True pragmatics as well as pure apobetics. Can someone falsify this test?

Simple test:

A. gather some hydrochloric acid.

B. put it in a cup, but remove any zinc from the cup first.

C. See what happens.

Now simply put the hydrochloric acid in the cup without removing the zinc from the cup. Result: hydrogen gas and zinc chloride. True pragmatics as well as pure apobetics? Nope, I call it "chemistry."

[Lincoln]

test B:

A. Turn the radio on and tune it to a station that is on the air and transmitting information (a talk show).

B. Remove the speakers from the radio and instead record the electronic data on a tape.

C. Can you tell if there is intelligent input in that data or not? Yes__No__

If you answered yes tell how you know. If you answered no then you should do some more study on the subject.

[MrBaggins]

Lincoln... C -> Maybe... dependent on whether the being can sense the vibrations from the speaker, process them, and link them conceptually to other stored data

Its also a completely unrealistic analogy comparitively to DNA.

now answer mine

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
So the answer seems to be "evolution did it". That is real nice but no one has shown how it can set up a code along with a translation method along with valid information contained in the code along with a PRAGMATIC result.

We have. That's how evolution works. If the molecules couldn't replicate then there wouldn't more more of them. You're the only one calling chemistry a "code."

Pragmatics pure and simple is what DNA oriduces, i.e., a finished product made according to plan contained in the initial information.

It's called chemistry. Add HCl to Zinc, and you get hydrogen and zinc-chloride.

Simple data cannot do that except as chemical bonds like in a snowflake or crystal.

Simple data does do it--it's called DNA replication.

There is no code and no translation and no meaningful information. It is as you said only data.

There is a code--the photons. There is translation--applying the data from these photons to the equations derived from astrophysicists. There is meaningful information that results--the positions and compositions of distant stars.

The question is the source of the code and the information contained in it.

Yes, and Jack TB is saying that there is no source. You're ignoring his answer by dismissing it as "belief," regardless of the fact tha this answer is experimentally verified while your belief that there is an intelligent source has not been verified.

The information is there regardless of human labels.

What intelligence is reading this information? Information requires an intelligent receiver, does it not? Who is the intended receiver?

How does natural selection select a code beofre the translation process is known?

Easy. Natural processes produce a multitude of "codes," and only the codes that can be successfully translated are kept. The others naturally break down.

DNA passes all of the tests.

Who is the intended receiver of the information?