Freethought & Rationalism Archive

svensky · 03-11-2002, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Yes, the premise #1 is unproven (although not necessarily untrue). #2 implies DNA has intelligence, I'd be interested if anyone has evidence to show it is more than an organic molecule.

Could you explain why premise 2 implies that DNA has intelligence ?

Code by an intelligence yes, but not more intelligent than the paper one writes information onto.

Jason

John Page · 03-11-2002, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by svensky:

Could you explain why premise 2 implies that DNA has intelligence ?
Jason

When read in conjunction, #1 + #2 form a self-fulfilling prophecy that DNA has intelligence. Therefore #2 implies without proof that DNA has intelligence.

If you thought I meant "implies correctly" this is a misunderstanding.

Cheers.

excreationist · 03-11-2002, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
"To make this less confusing, I suggest that the states of unobserved physical systems not be referred to information at all."

Since my post did not speak of unobserved physical systems I take it you were not addressing me. But let's see where this goes.

This is in response to what other people had said before in the cre/evo thread.

Quote:

"So there is only one kind of information - this involves symbols."

Ok.

Quote:

"So some basepairs in DNA can symbolise or refer to an amino acid that has to be manufactured."

This doesn't seem right to me. The chosen language directs us to a causal sequence having but one outcome (by your use of "has to be"). I do not thereby see any information content.

As I said, I see symbols and information as being the same thing. DNA code is made up of symbols - so it is information.
"has to be" is just about determinism. Determinism doesn't make information impossible.
See <a href="http://www.microbiology.adelaide.edu.au/learn/tables.htm" target="_blank">this table</a> to see what amino acids the DNA "codons" represent.
Note that this is an arbitrary language. It is conceiveable that the codons could represent different amino acids or molecules, assuming that there is a different decoding mechanism. But within the context of a normal cell, DNA codons have only one meaning.
In the same way that "5" represents five objects and "6" represents objects... but in another language, "6" could represent five objects and "5" could represent zero objects...
But within the context of the language, it has one meaning.
And within the context of normal cells, DNA codes have one meaning.

Quote:

If, on the other hand, I am unaware of the DNA sequence, but only know how it works (what theoretical meaning there is in DNA sequencing), observing only the phenotypic amino acid, I could take this as a clue (a piece of information) that the DNA sequence that produced it is from one of the those that the theory predicts. To decide which one, I would need more information. Note that this does not specifically depend on "unobserved physical states" but rather to the theory by which we understand how to interpret observations.

There would have been symbols (information) within the DNA of life-forms even before it was discovered by humans.

Quote:

"The physical state of an isolated photon is not a symbol for anything. It doesn't refer to anything else. It is just a photon."

As in the previous case, however, we can take a colored mark on a medium as a piece of information that tells us that (in conjunction with a lot of theory) that it is a photon having a particular frequency that caused the mark.

We can interpret the photon to have meaning by associating it with our previous memories but otherwise it doesn't carry any information.

Quote:

"So the "meaning" is just what the symbol refers to, in the context of the information processing system."

Ok, but let's see.

[] (The following is now taken from your specific response to me.)

"I'm saying that information is just symbols or references to things or patterns/concepts other than the physical medium itself."

In conjunction with your position on meaning, I can probably agree with this, but I think you have your references backwards. At least this is how I interpreted your two examples in the prior post.

Well it goes in different directions depending on whether information is encoded or decoded.

[quote]"The common definition of "Information is what is extracted from the world" is a bad one I think."

I'm not sure what your objection is, so let me hold off on responding until I find out.

Quote:

"I don't see how that applies to DNA. DNA is accumulated by random recombinations, mutations and natural selection. This mechanism is a form of information processing IMO, and DNA is information (it is symbolic)."

If I use your vocabulary (symbols whose meaning is what the symbols refer to), then I would say that phenotypes are symbols and what they refer to are genotypes.

The genes are the information which are translated into physical things (proteins).
So *genotypes* are the symbols which are translated into phenotypes.

Quote:

Thus, the 'information processing system' that I would be referring to is not the one you select. Rather it is the process by which phenotypes are produced by genotypes. To be an information processor, of course, it has to select information from its environment, much of which, I believe, is already determined by other genetic features, in consideration of its high degree of adaptation to the environment, and through delicate controls, produces the phenotype it is designed to do.

The genotype is the symbol though - the phenotype is the realization of this code into a physical form. The genotypes are just codes - like a blue-print. That's why they are called symbols - or information.

Quote:

...However, in so far as you characterize it above, I'd say the compiler is the information processor, processing information it receives in the from of a program given to it allegedly in some language to which the compiler can be said to convert what it finds to some other form that other processors can deal with. Each piece of information picked up by the compiler is processed according to a rule whose meaning is deciphered and pinned down according to higher rules, thereby removing ambiguity, if it can.

So easy to understand symbols (the source code) are tranlated into raw machine code (the compiled code).

Quote:

This is not entirely unlike what our cognitive system works, though it must be confessed that we live with a fair amount of ambiguity in our lives, unlike computer programs who are not much able to tolerate it.

This means our language is richer - with symbols (words) having many meanings (referring to different objects/concepts/etc), depending on their context.

excreationist · 03-11-2002, 06:03 PM

turtonm:
What about my comments on premise 1 -
I'm saying that meaning can means a symbol refers to or translates to or implies - within a given context.

And the codons in DNA translate to amino acids, so it has a "meaning" to the cell.

I think it is good to say that DNA has a meaning to the cell so that the word "meaning" becomes less mysterious and more mechanical.

svensky:

Quote:

Code by an intelligence yes, but not more intelligent than the paper one writes information onto.

Paper has no intelligence. It doesn't do anything on its own. It can be used by a human to aide their intelligence though. But a self-replicating cell is a self-contained information processing system.

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]

owleye · 03-11-2002, 06:20 PM

excreationist....

I'm afraid I can't abide by your definitions of 'information' and 'meaning'. As such, there is little of value in my proceeding with a dialog with you.

Good luck with your project. I hope it serves you well.

owleye

owleye · 03-11-2002, 06:38 PM

Scientiae...

From your portrayal of mturner's argument:

1) DNA is information with meaning.
2) Meaning can only be encoded/decoded by an intelligence
C: DNA information demonstrates ID

The argument may be a valid one, though it needs a charitable premise or two to make it so, but I would not accept the premises and would need considerable persuasion before I'd consider it sound. It could be, however, that mturner defines information and meaning such that they have the properties the premises require of them, making them analytically true, which, of course, does not get us very far. And this may be what you were referring to by your intuition that he was defining intelligence into existence (assuming that DNA exists, that is).

There are other problems as well, in consideration that genes themselves are ideal entities. The real counterpart of what a gene is does not necessarily match up with the ideal one, since their instantiation in nucleotide sequences could be missing a base pair, and it is only within the context of an ideal gene that their instance can be measured. How does an intelligent design make mistakes?

owleye

Principia · 03-11-2002, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
From your portrayal of mturner's argument:

1) DNA is information with meaning.
2) Meaning can only be encoded/decoded by an intelligence
C: DNA information demonstrates ID

Owleye,
I can only hope this is the most succinct form of mturner's argument, given mturner's slightly verbose explanation of his position. At present, we are still stuck with definitions. I think I have to take the advice to jump ahead and argue the implications, since I have discovered that there are no widely accepted definitions for vague terms like 'intelligence' or 'information' or 'meaning.'

Quote:

The argument may be a valid one, though it needs a charitable premise or two to make it so, but I would not accept the premises and would need considerable persuasion before I'd consider it sound.

Neither do I. At present, I am trying to pin down mturner's arguments. He has variously accused me of being 'unclear' in my arguments, or avoided key questions like how to create a formal definition of 'meaning' or 'information' that is not overly exclusive (or inclusive of the wrong sets), or simply avoided threads altogether. If you'd like please check the link again for the latest discussion:

<a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001956.html" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001956.html</a>

Quote:

The real counterpart of what a gene is does not necessarily match up with the ideal one, since their instantiation in nucleotide sequences could be missing a base pair, and it is only within the context of an ideal gene that their instance can be measured. How does an intelligent design make mistakes?

Though I agree with the assessment, I am trying to avoid arguing the actual implications of ID without establishing the correct framework for the discussion (neither mturner or I, strangely enough are versed in most of the ID theory). I am finding that on the ARN board there are many incorrect premises from which the various posters are drawing conclusions. Given my training in the physical sciences, I can more effectively strike down the conclusions at the root.

I don't doubt at some point mturner will eventually make a mistake in that regard. At the moment, I believe he is hiding behind metaphysics (especially the little known field of biosemiotics), but he can't hide forever

I continue to welcome insight in this matter.

SC

owleye and turtonm and JP: Thanks again for your posts. I needed some of the ammunition you've given me <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]

Vorkosigan · 03-11-2002, 07:28 PM

mturner has accused you of being unclear? Has avoided the issues?

How unusual!

Good luck. You'd be better off trying to pour fog into a mold than arguing with mturner

copernicus · 03-11-2002, 07:39 PM

Quote:

1) DNA is information with meaning.
2) Meaning can only be encoded/decoded by an intelligence
3) DNA information demonstrates ID

I believe that the term "intelligence" is too vague and ambiguous for this argument to make any sense. Is a computer an "intelligence"? Computers are Turing machines that encode and decode symbols. They don't "understand" the symbols they interpret, but humans make intelligent use of what computers do. Similarly, DNA is "interpreted" by dumb RNA. The properties of cells are shaped by how the RNA reads information encoded in DNA. Humans try to "understand" what RNA does with the information encoded in DNA. RNA is no more intelligent than a computer is when it reads information stored on a disk drive.

Richard Dawkins has had more to say on this subject than any other philosopher or scientist that I know of. The Blind Watchmaker does a superb job of crushing the "intelligent design" argument.

As Dawkins pointed out, the ID argument lacks explanatory power anyway. The intelligence that does the designing is even more complex than the thing it designs. If complexity requires intelligent design, then what intelligence designed the designer? One can write simple little computer programs to mimic genetically-driven evolution because it require no intelligence at all to explain. It is a natural consequence of self-replicating processes.

Principia · 03-11-2002, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by copernicus:
I believe that the term "intelligence" is too vague and ambiguous for this argument to make any sense. Is a computer an "intelligence"? Computers are Turing machines that encode and decode symbols.

It is an interesting question, and if you accept mturner's arguments then the conclusion is that *because* computers can encode and decode symbols, they must be the product of intelligent design. In other words, computers are merely an extension of human intelligence, and the symbols represent meaning that can only be encoded by intelligence.

I agree that somewhere before we reach this conclusion, we must show why the premises are wrong.

SC

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]

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

03-11-2002, 06:20 PM	#15
owleye Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Home Posts: 229	excreationist.... I'm afraid I can't abide by your definitions of 'information' and 'meaning'. As such, there is little of value in my proceeding with a dialog with you. Good luck with your project. I hope it serves you well. owleye

03-11-2002, 06:38 PM	#16
owleye Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Home Posts: 229	Scientiae... From your portrayal of mturner's argument: 1) DNA is information with meaning. 2) Meaning can only be encoded/decoded by an intelligence C: DNA information demonstrates ID The argument may be a valid one, though it needs a charitable premise or two to make it so, but I would not accept the premises and would need considerable persuasion before I'd consider it sound. It could be, however, that mturner defines information and meaning such that they have the properties the premises require of them, making them analytically true, which, of course, does not get us very far. And this may be what you were referring to by your intuition that he was defining intelligence into existence (assuming that DNA exists, that is). There are other problems as well, in consideration that genes themselves are ideal entities. The real counterpart of what a gene is does not necessarily match up with the ideal one, since their instantiation in nucleotide sequences could be missing a base pair, and it is only within the context of an ideal gene that their instance can be measured. How does an intelligent design make mistakes? owleye

03-11-2002, 07:28 PM	#18
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	mturner has accused you of being unclear? Has avoided the issues? How unusual! Good luck. You'd be better off trying to pour fog into a mold than arguing with mturner

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.