Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HRG · 03-09-2002, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scientiae:
[QB]

Buckley,

I agree with this point, and it is a shame that informaticians haven't made this their own 0th law, or something to that effect

. In case you have checked the ARN forum, this theory that you are trying to debunk has been termed 'Jephtodynamics,' in loving memory of Jeptha who made this assertion and is still arguing it.

However, I am still at a lost on how to argue 'meaning.' If meaningful information is encoded, and DNA has meaningful information (I guess in the sense that it directs function that is external to itself), then the argument is that some *intelligence* must have encoded it. In other words, the meaning must exist before and independently of the encoding.

But "function", "external" and "encoding" are only metaphors which help us in our understanding of the universe; they have no existence outside our minds and are to some degree arbitrary.

I could claim that it is a function of the sun to coerce planets into (almost) elliptic orbits. Since planets are external to the sun, I conclude that this is the "meaning" of the sun. Etc. Etc.

I regard this line of argument as another case where people did not distinguish between a metaphor and reality. That�s at least how I see it.

Regards,
HRG.

Principia · 03-09-2002, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
What's that site you are pulling from SC?

Luvluv,

<a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001953.html" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001953.html</a>

It is on the ARN forum.

I've posted a reply without reading the statements by turtonm, excreationist, HRG, and others. (I didn't think people were going to be up this late, state-side =)

In any case, if any of you have anything to add or correct in my analysis, would you care to post your opinions there? It has become a little frustrating for me to deal with philosophy when understanding 'how' is more important than 'why' for me =) .

Thanks,
SC

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]

excreationist · 03-10-2002, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG:
But "function", "external" and "encoding" are only metaphors which help us in our understanding of the universe; they have no existence outside our minds and are to some degree arbitrary.

I could claim that it is a function of the sun to coerce planets into (almost) elliptic orbits. Since planets are external to the sun, I conclude that this is the "meaning" of the sun. Etc. Etc.

I regard this line of argument as another case where people did not distinguish between a metaphor and reality. That�s at least how I see it.

About the function of information - I think this is like how biologists say that systems in the body, like the circulatory system, have a function - they are used by the system in an organized way. It doesn't mean that our bodies were designed by a conscious creator though.

I think that all information has to be used in some way - this use is its function. And information exists as part of an information processing system. I think if there is no information processing (interpreter) there is no information.

About the term "external" - this just means outside of the information processing system. So the information refers to objects or relationships in the outside world.
e.g. if a symbol doesn't refer to anything at all, it doesn't contain any information. Symbols are meant to be associated with other objects or relationships...

"Encoding" refers to external things being detected and represented using symbols. So in the memories of animals, they can convert experiences into neural memories, then later recall them. And digital cameras can encode video as 1's and 0's (magnetic fields of two kinds).

Scientiae:

Quote:

However, I am still at a lost on how to argue 'meaning.' If meaningful information is encoded, and DNA has meaningful information (I guess in the sense that it directs function that is external to itself), then the argument is that some *intelligence* must have encoded it. In other words, the meaning must exist before and independently of the encoding.

Well I think that information processing systems are what intelligence is all about. And natural selection is a kind of information processing system.

faded_Glory · 03-10-2002, 04:37 AM

To be honest, I have only skimmed the posts, but my 2 pence is that the word 'meaning' already implies intelligence. Once you allow the word 'meaning' in a discussion of physical phenomena you have introduced intelligence via the back door, and you will be hard pressed to get rid of it again.

The 'information' in DNA causes the development of a fertilised egg into a fully grown organism. Is intelligence required for this process, or is it no more than a very large number of complex chemical reactions? If it is claimed that intelligence is required, one needs to ask exactly which step in this process cannot be explained in terms of natural science.

fG

excreationist · 03-10-2002, 06:20 AM

faded_Glory:
I think that all intelligence is just information processing. And I think that the evolution of DNA has been a result of information processing involving DNA recombinations and natural selection. And this is a form of intelligence.

*

Just about DNA vs. human-level information:

To a cell, DNA isn't informationally rich. Each codon (triplet) of base pairs only represents one of 20 amino acids (and maybe something else). So this codon is converted directly into an amino acid - there is no other information processing (or symbol manipulation) involved.

On the other hand, to humans, words are very rich.... e.g. the word "ball" can trigger many associations that we have accumulated in our lifetime. There can even be chains of associations -
e.g.
ball -> beach ball -> playing with beach ball at a crowded beach
ball -> round -> circle -> curve -> curvy ball
ball -> red ball -> yellow ball.

Anyway, to the parts of a cell which read the DNA and manufacture the appropriate amino acids, the information is very one-dimensional, but our words are multi-dimensional and richer...

Axiom of Choice · 03-10-2002, 06:37 AM

I got to bed and wake up to find that everyone has made my points already.

I'm going to have to agree with Micheal on the concept of `encoding' and `meaning.' Simply because a system has information encoded does not imply an encoder. A photon scattering off a crystal has been encoded with a hell of a lot of information, but it is totally unwarrented to argue that some intelligent entity was present to encode that information. All systems carry information, it is just that most of them carry information that it uninteresting to us.

I find it amusing that someone is arguing that information must be created by an intelligence, since one of the areas of research in physics currently is whether intelligence is necessary for information to be read. This is the famous Schrodinger's Cat paradox, and I bring it up only as an interesting side note.

excreationist · 03-10-2002, 07:15 AM

buckleym:

Quote:

...All systems carry information, it is just that most of them carry information that it uninteresting to us...

I wouldn't call the physical details of something "information". I call the *symbolic representation* of physical phenomenon information.
Animals can encode experiences symbolically... and DNA is a bunch of symbols... the "codons" refer to amino acids - this is what symbols are about.
A photon doesn't symbolize or refer to anything. It is just a photon. That's all. When we extract information from it, we are looking at its features and representing these using symbols. (e.g. as neural activity or on a computer or handwritten or spoken words)

Axiom of Choice · 03-10-2002, 07:29 AM

excreationist,

I was merely referring to the scientific (more precisely, the quantum information theory) definition of `information,' which is pretty much the state of some physical system. Since all systems by definition are in some state or superposition of states, they all carry information in this regard. Again, this information may be useless or even unreadable by us, but it exists in some sense.

As I said before, I can't really comment on the philosophical concepts of `information.' However, it seemed to me that the original post was making a claim on the scientific meaning of the term, which is what I was trying to address.

Principia · 03-10-2002, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by buckleym:
I find it amusing that someone is arguing that information must be created by an intelligence, since one of the areas of research in physics currently is whether intelligence is necessary for information to be read. This is the famous Schrodinger's Cat paradox, and I bring it up only as an interesting side note.

I've learned over the past week of engaging these people, that simply sounding incredulous is insufficient. But, I sure wish it was =)

The argument has evolved to the point of semantics. 'Meaningful' information is different from 'materialist' information (I guess he means information that serves no function) in that the former was encoded specifically to be 'conveyed' to a second entity, or 'intelligence' (it is quite obvious why this terminology). Until an 'intelligence' encodes a 'meaning' then, by definition, the 'materialist' information has no 'meaning.' Sounds like a bunch of definitions to me. But he is claiming that it is 'science' (i.e. Biosemiotics.).

Sigh,
SC

scigirl · 03-10-2002, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by buckleym:
Hello all. I've been lurking around for a while, and I figured I'd add my two cents for a change.

Hello buckleym,

I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this particular thread since I am only a biologist. . . sigh. . . .but I just wanted to welcome you to infidels!

Scigirl

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2002, 04:37 AM	#14
faded_Glory Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Cairo, Egypt Posts: 1,128	To be honest, I have only skimmed the posts, but my 2 pence is that the word 'meaning' already implies intelligence. Once you allow the word 'meaning' in a discussion of physical phenomena you have introduced intelligence via the back door, and you will be hard pressed to get rid of it again. The 'information' in DNA causes the development of a fertilised egg into a fully grown organism. Is intelligence required for this process, or is it no more than a very large number of complex chemical reactions? If it is claimed that intelligence is required, one needs to ask exactly which step in this process cannot be explained in terms of natural science. fG

03-10-2002, 06:20 AM	#15
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	faded_Glory: I think that all intelligence is just information processing. And I think that the evolution of DNA has been a result of information processing involving DNA recombinations and natural selection. And this is a form of intelligence. * Just about DNA vs. human-level information: To a cell, DNA isn't informationally rich. Each codon (triplet) of base pairs only represents one of 20 amino acids (and maybe something else). So this codon is converted directly into an amino acid - there is no other information processing (or symbol manipulation) involved. On the other hand, to humans, words are very rich.... e.g. the word "ball" can trigger many associations that we have accumulated in our lifetime. There can even be chains of associations - e.g. ball -> beach ball -> playing with beach ball at a crowded beach ball -> round -> circle -> curve -> curvy ball ball -> red ball -> yellow ball. Anyway, to the parts of a cell which read the DNA and manufacture the appropriate amino acids, the information is very one-dimensional, but our words are multi-dimensional and richer...

03-10-2002, 06:37 AM	#16
Axiom of Choice Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ohio (sigh) Posts: 14	I got to bed and wake up to find that everyone has made my points already. I'm going to have to agree with Micheal on the concept of `encoding' and `meaning.' Simply because a system has information encoded does not imply an encoder. A photon scattering off a crystal has been encoded with a hell of a lot of information, but it is totally unwarrented to argue that some intelligent entity was present to encode that information. All systems carry information, it is just that most of them carry information that it uninteresting to us. I find it amusing that someone is arguing that information must be created by an intelligence, since one of the areas of research in physics currently is whether intelligence is necessary for information to be read. This is the famous Schrodinger's Cat paradox, and I bring it up only as an interesting side note.

03-10-2002, 07:29 AM	#18
Axiom of Choice Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ohio (sigh) Posts: 14	excreationist, I was merely referring to the scientific (more precisely, the quantum information theory) definition of `information,' which is pretty much the state of some physical system. Since all systems by definition are in some state or superposition of states, they all carry information in this regard. Again, this information may be useless or even unreadable by us, but it exists in some sense. As I said before, I can't really comment on the philosophical concepts of `information.' However, it seemed to me that the original post was making a claim on the scientific meaning of the term, which is what I was trying to address.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.