The great information debate

[Lincoln]

Posted by MrBaggins:

"You might want to show how your little experiment is true meaningful information like we have been discussing. Your attempts at evasion are getting boring. You are not proving anything about coded languages and you know full well you are not.

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.

DNA is information that exists on its own just as words in a dictionary exist on their own. The process finds and translates these words and uses them pragmatically. It is a process just as a word processor processes information that is available to it. It is information in its own right. The process uses it. That should answer both questions.

[loinburger]

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

There is an intended intelligent receiver for radio. You have yet to specify who or what the intended intelligent receiver for DNA is.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by loinburger


There is an intended intelligent receiver for radio. You have yet to specify who or what the intended intelligent receiver for DNA is.

Are you going to answer the question? Do that and I will show the relevance so we do not go through 100 more posts defining petty bs that is used for evasion ( I am not talking about you).

[MrBaggins]

q

Originally posted by Lincoln
Posted by MrBaggins:

"You might want to show how your little experiment is true meaningful information like we have been discussing. Your attempts at evasion are getting boring. You are not proving anything about coded languages and you know full well you are not.

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.

DNA is information that exists on its own just as words in a dictionary exist on their own. The process finds and translates these words and uses them pragmatically. It is a process just as a word processor processes information that is available to it. It is information in its own right. The process uses it. That should answer both questions.

You are trying to tell me that

(DNA != DNA+a process) is false?


You are quite apparently living in a dreamworld.

You provide no proof anywhere in your explanation that DNA is somehow simultaneously both itself and itself and another process.

Show chemical proof



Then you say that the process is pragmatic... not DNA... so you answered the second question incorrectly.

Try again.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by 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

You should study the subject more if you can only say "maybe". See me after you have done your homework.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Are you going to answer the question?

Well, since you're apparently not going to answer mine...

The tape contains recorded information, since I know that the radio station I taped off of was transmitting information.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln


You should study the subject more if you can only say "maybe". See me after you have done your homework.

Define exactly in terms of physical laws is incorrect with my statement, then.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln


You should study the subject more if you can only say "maybe". See me after you have done your homework.

I also refer you to the blind man argument, except, make it the deaf man.

[Lincoln]

"You are trying to tell me that.."

No I told you exactly what I meant to tell you. If you want to twist my words then do it on you own. I am not going to engage you in a battle of wits so that you can continue to evade the issue.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"You are trying to tell me that.."

No I told you exactly what I meant to tell you. If you want to twist my words then do it on you own. I am not going to engage you in a battle of wits so that you can continue to evade the issue.

You choose not to answer because you CANNOT answer.

prove chemically, that DNA is both itself and itself and another process simultaneously.

[Jack_www]

Here is the reason why I think DNA is information, not just data. DNA so to speak has the blueprints for the life form it is in. There are like the blue prints for a house, they have instructions on how to build something, in one case a living thing, and in the other a house. Data would be observations you make or the results of an experiment, all the measurements that you took and recorded.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Here is the reason why I think DNA is information, not just data. DNA so to speak has the blueprints for the life form it is in. There are like the blue prints for a house, they have instructions on how to build something, in one case a living thing, and in the other a house. Data would be observations you make or the results of an experiment, all the measurements that you took and recorded.

find a analogy of instructions not involving humans, then get back to me.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by loinburger


Well, since you're apparently not going to answer mine...

The tape contains recorded information, since I know that the radio station I taped off of was transmitting information.

Thanks for a direct answer. There is another way to know however and this is the method used to sort out "noise" from a valid coded language (all languages are coded btw).

The way it is done is by studying the patterns and order or sequence of the data. For example if it was just; ...................etc.

Or: .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.etc. or it would not prove intelligent input. If it was pure random it would also not prove intelligent input, i.e., ..--.-.-.------..--------........--.-.-.-----.----.-.-.-.----.....---.-.-.-.-. etc.

Intelligence is inferred when a true code is found. It would be very easy even with no knowledge of the English language to find evidence of intelligence in the radio transmission just as it would be simple to study the 1's and 0's on this forum and find evidence of intelligence. The genetic code is evidence of intelligence. If it was only random or not translated or endless repeats of the same letter then it would be evidence of simply the laws of physics without an intelligent inferrence.

[MrBaggins]

dp.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
*snip*If it was only random or not translated or endless repeats of the same letter then it would be evidence of simply the laws of physics without an intelligent inferrence.

Its already been proved that random data (especially permutational) can be interpretted as meaningful information. (and using a natural source too) Try again.