Principia

Owleye,
I think you've put the finger on the issue here. It seems that mturner is telling a joke without a punchline (i.e. he has simply qualified 'intelligence' as being a property of life, without revealing the significance of this analysis with respect to a formal definition of 'intelligence'). In truth then, I should have rephrased his arguments as:

P1) DNA has information
P2) Information can only be encoded/decoded by intelligence
C: <none yet>

It then begs the question: so? For instance, I can argue that 1) DNA is a polymer of different subunits, 2) polymerization requires the right 'intelligence' encoded in the subunits both for connecting to a new subunit (a 'tail') and for docking to a growing chain (a 'head'). At least in my case, I do not believe I have gained either new understanding of what intelligence means, or the nature of the subunits that permit polymerization.

SC

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

mturner

**

Hi owleye;

Here is where I disagreed with the others at ARN, and now with you. I do not believe that DNA is simply data. I believe that it holds interpreted, and therefore meaningful, data, compressed in a code. A code whose meaning can only be read by an intelligence familiar with with its symbology. It is semiotic, in that it carries abstracted information formalised in a code, which, when read, affects the structure and behaviour of another entity, thus forming part of a triad. Sender/code/receiver.

A snowflake is not at all like that. With a snowflake, what you see is what you get. There is no symbology. The structure has no reference to anything other than itself; thus there is no code, and anyone can see what's written there, but it signifies nothing. It simply is. Just like any old entity, it exists, and that's all that it does. And that is all that its properties, including, repetitive, regular, geometric structures, do. It can only form a dyad. Self/observer.

This is an essential difference from the semiotic of the DNA code, and must be accepted. We must not equivocate and conflate the two, because they truly are essentially different from each other. There is a quantum leap in complexity between a dyadic and a triadic process. Structure is irrelevent, geometric or not, unless it signifies something beyond itself.

**
I disagree. The conveyance of data is implicit in a code. It is another way of spotting the inherent, essential difference between a dyadic (factual) entity, and a triadic, (semiotic) process. DNA conveys information about another to another. A snowflake merely stores information about itself. Raw, factual, data, that is.

**
Sorry, but I'm not computer literate, so I don't know how to make that distinction. I just take the definition of 'genetic code':

genetic code
the information carried by DNA and messenger RNA that determines the sequence of amino acids in every protein and thereby controls the nature of all proteins made by the cell. The genetic code is expressed by the sequence of nucleotide bases in the nucleic acid molecule, a unit of three consecutive bases (a codon) coding for each amino acid. The code is translated into protein at the ribosomes (see transcription, translation). Any changes in the genetic code result in the insertion of incorrect amino acids in a protein chain, giving a mutation.
Concise Medical Dictionary, Oxford University Press, © Market House Books Ltd 1998

and relate it to semiotics;

semiotics
General theory of signs. Peirce distinguished three kinds of sign: icons, which are like the objects signified (e.g. naturalistic paintings); natural signs (e.g. clouds signify rain); and conventional signs (e.g. red for danger, and at least the majority of words). Semiotics is usually divided into three fields: semantics, the study of meaning; syntactics, the study of (surface 'grammatical' and also 'deep') structure; and pragmatics, which deals with the extra-linguistic purposes and effects of communications.
A.J.L.
Bibliography C. W. Morris, Signification and Significance (Cambridge, Mass., 1968).
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, © Oxford University Press 1995


Which means, I suppose, genetic code in the 'pragmatic' sense. In any case, here is where I am heading with all this:

Semiosis, more shortly, could be defined as the appearance of a connection between things, which do not have a priori anything in common, in the sense that they do not interact or convert each other through direct physical or chemical processes. However, as far as the relation between them, once established (by a subject), is nevertheless intermediated by physical or chemical processes, this infers that the relation is semiotic as long as it is established through learning.
This also means that there exist entities in the world (like 'meaning' of signs) which can influence only living systems and not non-living ones. Semiotic phenomena do not belong to physical reality."

See: <a href="http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/jesphohp.htm" target="_blank">http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/jesphohp.htm</a>

**
I beg to disagree. Intelligence does not require all of the properties of human intelligence to exist. Intelligence can be more or less limited even among different human beings, as we know. It's not a simple matter of, "You have it or you don't." But basic to it, always and everywhere, is the capacity to solve problems, correct errors,and make decisions, at least to some degree. The basic definition of intelligence is simply the ability to acquire and apply knowledge. Knowledge is simply that which has been perceived, discovered or learned, even through unconscious experience. That is why I see intelligence as fundamental to a definition of life.

pax,

mturner

Theophage

Wow, mturner, your above post was very interesting to me. It seems that there is much in the above that I woud agree with, some I woud agree with with certain caveats, but only some that I would outright disagree with. This is odd because I consider myself a naturalist as well as a materialist, and I did not consider you to be one. It seems that scientiae's version of your views is way too oversimplified to be correct.

Later this evening, I will return to outline exactly what I did and didn't disagree with and why.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Principia

Right away, we see a bias in mturner's argument. In order to reinterpret the DNA-protein system as an interplay of signs, he has to assume that 'unconscious' interpreters are permissible. With snowflakes, however, he immediately associates with it a human interpreter: 'what you see is what you get.' The fact that we do not associate a snowflake with a symbol does not mean that the theory of semiotics cannot apply to it. Though the structure of a snowflake is generally appreciated in the context of a human consciousness, semiotics does not preclude a sign-dependent interpretation of snowflake formation in a manner like what mturner has done for DNA-protein interactions.

So what do we require? mturner has provided the necessary ingredients of a semiotic system: a sender, a code, and a receiver. Permit me to construct one using the snowflake:

1) The sender: the snowflake at any stage of its formation.

2) The code: the H2O molecules at the edge of the snowflake that convey to other H2O molecules how to continue its crystal growth. Specifically, the encoding is in the charge of the water molecule (it is negative on the oxygen, and positive on the hydrogen). Crystal formation requires that the polar hydrogen interacts with the polar oxygen.

3) The receiver: the other H2O molecules as they settle onto the growing snowflake.

The information for the structure of the snowflake is thus encoded in the boundaries of the snowflake, and it is interpreted by other H2O molecules via electrostatic interactions (much like in DNA-protein-RNA interactions). It is triadic, despite the fact that the receiver becomes part of the sender (much like how the proteins are the end-products of DNA codes, but are themselves required to interpret the DNA). And the meaning exists independent of the sender (in the sense that regardless of the structure of the snowflake at any given time, the H2O molecules would 'know' exactly how to proceed with the crystal growth). Finally, the system is independent of a human observer (in the sense that the system propagates, irregardless of human observation).

How would snowflake information differ from DNA information in this regard? First, snowflake information is dynamic (consequently, each snowflake is generally believed to be unique, and the snowflake structure at a given time affects its future development). Second, the system is not considered organic (life did not evolve from snowflakes, so many scientists think at the moment). Third, the functions of the system are different (snowflakes-&gt;snowflakes, DNA-protein-&gt;DNA-protein). But are these differences relevant to the discussion?

I proffer this example for analysis. However, if proven a correct analysis in semiotics, then the implication is that DNA and snowflake structure *both* contain meaningful information. Remember, people, mturner's implicit goal, it turns out, is to differentiate information contained in snowflakes as opposed to that in DNA. So, my summary of his argument should have been:

Edit:
P1) DNA contains meaningful information
P2) Meaningful information can only be decoded/encoded by intelligences
C: DNA information is unlike snowflake structural information

Also, he explicitly referenced this discussion to a previous discussion which had tried to argue that the complexity in snowflakes would imply design much in the some way that DNA implies design.

SC

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

John Page

Whoa!

Point number One. DNA and Snowflakes just "are". Their structure is inferred by the observer. Their meaning is inferred by the observer. Their function and purpose is inferred by the observer. Same goes for a human being.

Point number Two. I have offspring. The genetic makeup of my offspring is not controlled by me - I have no control over where my genes came from (since I wasn't born) and no control over which characteristics are inherited from me as opposed to my mate. This being the case, I find the conferring of intelligence on DNA as far fetched.

Point Number Three. DNA is not data. It can be represented as data but it is a physical existing organic chemical.

I couldn't find anything substantial in semiotics and the redefinition of "intelligence" is well away from the norm. Show me DNA that is self-determining and sentient, as opposed to a chemical-mechanical copying process and I'll be lapping it up.

mturner

**

Hi John,

What is the meaning, function, and purpose of any given snowflake? You can pick any one you want.


**
'You', as your mental sense of identity,-- of course not. But physically you are the *source* of half the genetic information in the DNA in a zygote. The DNA is not intelligent. It is merely a message, a set of instructions. It, per se, is no more intelligent than a grocery list. DNA is only an acid, a medium. The medium, per se, is not the message, i.e., the meaningful, significant information it conveys; i.e., a set of intructions, a kind of knowledge. The code is not the message either. The medium (basically four 'letters' of nitrogeneous bases) and the code (the combinations of these 'letters') just connect the separate the organic intelligences that sent the instructions with the organic intelligence that received them and acted upon that knowledge.


I did not say it 'was' data. I said it was a medium that conveyed a code that meaningfully organised data into knowledge, a set of instructions. The newspaper is not the news, just the physical medium carrying the meaning in a coded message, words and sentences, etc. Of course the medium itself has it's own data, such as physical details and facts about the newsprint and ink, and so forth. But that's irrelevent to the meaningful message being conveyed. The actual meaningful message is not physical, anymore than the actual news in a newspaper is physical.

pax,

mturner

owleye

mturner...

I do not believe that DNA is simply data.

Nor do I. You seemed to read into what I wrote that I intended to qualify data by "simply." I did not. I was merely taking a charitable interpretation of the position that you were objecting to.


"I believe that it holds interpreted, and therefore meaningful, data, compressed in a code. A code whose meaning can only be read by an intelligence familiar with with its symbology."

Obviously you will need to explain this a bit. Are you thinking that the 'intelligence' here is humans who have cracked the code and are now able to interpret it as meaningful, or are you thinking of some other intelligence apart from the DNA doing this, or is it a third thing, namely that the intelligence is built into the code itself? (On reading further, I gather it is the third choice.)

"genetic code
the information carried by DNA and messenger RNA that determines the sequence of amino acids in every protein and thereby controls the nature of all proteins made by the cell. The genetic code is expressed by the sequence of nucleotide bases in the nucleic acid molecule, a unit of three consecutive bases (a codon) coding for each amino acid. The code is translated into protein at the ribosomes (see transcription, translation). Any changes in the genetic code result in the insertion of incorrect amino acids in a protein chain, giving a mutation.
Concise Medical Dictionary, Oxford University Press, © Market House Books Ltd 1998"

Ok. when referring to information, codes, data, etc., I will assume you are referring to something immaterial, not material.

"I beg to disagree. Intelligence does not require all of the properties of human intelligence to exist. Intelligence can be more or less limited even among different human beings, as we know. It's not a simple matter of, "You have it or you don't." But basic to it, always and everywhere, is the capacity to solve problems, correct errors,and make decisions, at least to some degree. The basic definition of intelligence is simply the ability to acquire and apply knowledge. Knowledge is simply that which has been perceived, discovered or learned, even through unconscious experience. That is why I see intelligence as fundamental to a definition of life."

Call it intelligence if you like, I'm not sure where that gets you. Indeed, your description of the genetic code does not match your subsequent interpretation of intelligence as the capacity to know something. As far as I can tell, the "intelligence" that you attribute to the genetic code is blind. It knows nothing.

I'm sure, now, we will disagree about what it means to know something. But I really don't wish to get side-tracked about differences between you and I over what intelligence and knowledge means. For the purposes of discussion I can try to relate to you on your own terms.

Thus, the question at the end of the day will be what you make of your conclusions. Now that there exists intelligence in the genetic code, what are we supposed to be able to conclude from this? What is the relationship between the intelligence of this code and the kind of organism expressed by the code? If codes never change, I have no reason to think they will, I would expect that they always produce the same kind of organism. True? If this is the case, I don't really need to dwell on the genetic code itself, I can equally discuss the kind of organism produced by the genetic code. It becomes a manifestation of the intelligence of the code.

Fell

mturner

**

Hi Fell
You misinterpreted. The genetic code is an arbitrary form. It has no intelligence of its own. Just as the alphabet has no intelligence of its own. It is used by one intelligence to convey meaningful information to another intelligence. As explained here below:

**
Good. It seems that we agree that they are mental representations of things, not 'things in themselves'.


**
Again I point out that I did not attribute intelligence to the genetic code itself. Nor did I describe intelligence as the capacity to know something. I described intelligence as the capacity to acquire knowledge and act upon it; that is, to learn. There is a subtle difference. Your interpretation is static and passive; my actual meaning is dynamic and active. Progressive, in fact.

**
False. The code [the 4 "letters", i.e., bases), never changes, but the message expressed by these 'letters' changes all the time, depending upon different 'letter' combinations. These combinations are referred to as 'the genetic code', just like the bases themselves. As mentioned above: "Any changes in the genetic code result in the insertion of incorrect amino acids in a protein chain, giving a mutation.". Which means any change in a specific standard combination.

Any mutation implies a different kind of organism, to a greater or lesser degree.

pax,

mturner

Theophage

I'm sorry, I promised to come back with commentary on mturner's response to owleye dated March 17, 2002 02:27 PM, but I have completely lost whatever train of thought I had on the subject.

I would like to clarify my thoughts on information/data however; please feel free to comment.

Being a materialist, I believe all that exists are physcial things (matter, energy, space, time) their properties, and their relations to each other. Out very minds and thoughts are also physical things in my view.

Information is not a physical thing in and of itself, but a property of physical things. This interesting thing about information is that it is not an intrinsic part of a thing, but an intrinsic part of a system of things. Information can be represented as an arrangement of physical things, but not all arrangements of things are information.

What makes a particular arrangement informational is its ability to be "decoded" by something else. Mturner called this a triadic relationship of sender/code/reciever. Here is an example:

1) dflkfh kks dklj fhgsk fjldfg
2) The cow jumped over the moon

Both 1 and 2 above are combinations of 28 characters (including spaces), but only 2 is considered to carry information. The difference between information carrying and non-information carrying is not anything intrinsic to the strings of characters themselves, but because when placed in a certain context/system (a human reading them), 2 is decodable but 1 is not.

What does "decodable" mean? It means that there is a mapping function from certain parts of the data string to certain parts of the decoder. In the example above, certain groups of letters are mapped with certain concepts in the mind of the reader.

In the case of DNA, we also have information, since certain parts of the DNA code map to certain amino acids (and therefore proteins) in a reader system that is RNA.

Some people would claim that only intellegence (of the human variety or beyond) are capable of creating information, or at the very least that random chance and natural processes cannot create information. I find this claim to be false.

mturner seems to be using the term "intelligence" in a nonstandard manner, which I assume is why Scientiae misunderstands what mturner is trying to say. To be honest, I'm not even sure what he is trying to say, and I would hope that he finds a way to put his points across in a clearer manner.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Malaclypse the Younger

You're not the first to observe this.