Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 121 of 220 (324826)
06-22-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by tdcanam
06-22-2006 9:49 AM


induction
That is why I said, to date, all codes are products of conscious minds.
I know, that is why I concluded that you were not using deductive reasoning and that you were instead using inductive reasoning. See Message 24 where that happens.
I don't think that time passing between the origional code, DNA, and the next most recent code, say writing, weakens the idea. If one was to, for arguments sake, assume that DNA was programed, the gap between DNA and human codes would strengthen the argument. It would show that nature wasn't able to generate codes, only consiouness. The origional, and us. (Animals wouldn't leave communication behind.)
You miss the point. We have no evidence of a conscious entity before DNA. The only conscious entity we know of exists after DNA. This is why DNA is different from every single consciously created code. It is just one fundamental difference between DNA and other codes, one that serves to weaken the conclusion.
DNA, like in my example some posts before this one about John, Al, and Bill, is like a computer storing info.
I know how DNA works. That is why I raised the second difference: it is self-replicating. Something that no human code is.
One more time, lol. DNA doesn't replicate itself
What on earth are you talking about? You don't think DNA self-replicates? You seem to be talking only about the development part of DNA, why are you ignoring its other highly important property? It replicates itself. That's its most important feature!
it is like paper with instructions for parts on it. mRNA looks at it, copies down the info and heads over to the ribosomes...
Yes, it does that. But that is not all it does, it also self-replicates. And Greek does not self-replicate, it requires a conscious mind to replicate. This is a fundamental difference between the two - its the most important and it puts your induction on very shaky ground.
Yes, other code do. Look at antivirus programs. We make'm, and put'em on a puter. They do all the work. I go to sleep and the program communicates all night.
One might make a case for it - but we are the ones that start the communication, and we are the ones that do something with the outcome. It was why I used the word principally - the code that built an antivirus program has a clear purpose, a purpose that is only wielded by conscious entites. DNA's purpose appears to be to build vehicles that can aid in self-replication.
This is not the big one, it is only a minor point. The self-replication is the big one. I suggest again that we focus on that one since it is most fundamental. In a way, it is the root of the other objections.
What are these differences? Remember, DNA itself is not the code, it is the medium, like a computer storing info.
So now DNA isn't a code? Fine, show me a human medium of communication that is self replicating. We'd have to look once again to computer programs. In this sense though, the medium isn't self-replicating only the information. The medium is the computer, which is not self-replicating.
If we find a 5,000 year old stone tablet with writing on it, we observe that the tablet is not self-replicating. The language on it probably came from a conscious agent, much like our other stone tablets.
If we find a computer code, we observe that the 18 month old computer is not self-replicating. Probably a conscious agent built it.
We find a genetic code, we observe that the six month old DNA molecule is self replicating. We also observe that genetic code is an integral part of the medium itself. It was built by a similar copy of itself, which was built by a similar copy of itself. It looks like this has been going on for longer than all known conscious entites have existed. We can no longer have any confidence in the idea that a conscious agent built the first DNA molecule with the code embedded into it.
All the crows that we have seen are black
Therefore, it is reasonable to say that, to date, all crows are black.
It is not comparable to what you are saying though. You are saying:
quote:
All the crows that we have know the colour of are black, but there is one bird which is fundamentally different to crows in several regards.
Therefore, the one bird is black.
This is not a weak induction. The conclusion makes sence. It is also observable, measurable and testable, :. scientific.
The conclusion is observable, measurable and testable? The crows scenario is, and that is why the true crow induction has strength. The DNA induction isn't. The Crows are black, therefore this bird that isn't the same as a crow is also black is not a strong induction.
The codes we know are consciously created I shall call knowcodes.
The codes we don't we'll call DNA. I give them different names because they have different properties, though they share some. They are both under the umbrella of 'code'.
knowcodes are created conscious entities.
DNA is thus created by a conscious entity.
That's your induction and it is weak because knowcodes are not identical to DNA.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by tdcanam, posted 06-22-2006 9:49 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by tdcanam, posted 06-23-2006 8:50 AM Modulous has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 122 of 220 (324845)
06-22-2006 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by tdcanam
06-22-2006 8:28 AM


Re: Percy
What programed the alien?
I'll ask you the same question--who programmed the first programmer, ie God?
You state it doesn't matter if the aliens programmed DNA. Well, then it doesn't matter if God programmed DNA. Because, as you ask, who programmed, created, or whatever the first entities?
You dismiss the alien argument on this ground. Looks like you also need to dismiss God on the same ground. Oops.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by tdcanam, posted 06-22-2006 8:28 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Annafan, posted 06-22-2006 12:23 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 148 by tdcanam, posted 06-23-2006 9:16 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 123 of 220 (324851)
06-22-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by kuresu
06-22-2006 11:54 AM


Re: Percy
What programed the alien?
I'll ask you the same question--who programmed the first programmer, ie God?
You state it doesn't matter if the aliens programmed DNA. Well, then it doesn't matter if God programmed DNA. Because, as you ask, who programmed, created, or whatever the first entities?
You dismiss the alien argument on this ground. Looks like you also need to dismiss God on the same ground. Oops.
For what it's worth, I think he just loves to argue for the sake of arguing. Like you now also pointed out, he'll actually never get anywhere with this approach. It's an infinite regression, and he seems to like it (??) Verrry "interesting".
Personally, I'm done with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by kuresu, posted 06-22-2006 11:54 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by tdcanam, posted 06-23-2006 9:18 AM Annafan has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 124 of 220 (324899)
06-22-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by tdcanam
06-22-2006 8:33 AM


Re: Percy
Hi tdcanam,
The difference of opinion comes down to different definitions of codes. The definition of code that you prefer to use includes design by a conscious mind, conscious intent, a sender and a receiver.
By your own criteria, DNA is a not a code because there is no apparent conscious design or conscious intent.
However, by a more widely accepted definition of code, for example, that found at Code - Wikipedia, DNA is a code. So are tree rings and starlight.
I think the discussion is bogged down right now, and that the best way out is to find a definition of code that everyone can agree upon.
Your post contained a few logical fallacies and misunderstandings:
quote:
You have no way of knowing what types of codes might be designed by alien conscious minds. To make such a claim would be an illogical leap.
That changes nothing. If aliens create codes, the codes are still a product of conscious "alien" minds. What programed the alien?
The significant point that you're missing is that you don't know the qualities of the broader classification of "conscious mind" because you have only one sample: human beings. You only know the types of codes created by human beings. You have no examples of codes by aliens, so you don't know if they would resemble codes by human beings. In other words, at present the set of all known codes by "conscious minds" is identical with the set of all known codes by human beings. You have no knowledge of codes by alien minds, and can reach no conclusions about them. Clear now?
quote:
* Intent is not part of the definition of a code...
Look up a definition of code that doesn't requier intent or direct conscious programing.
I keep pointing you at the Wikipedia definition. It defines a code as a rule for converting information from one form of representation to another. It doesn't say the rule must be a product of a conscious mind. Science has discovered the universe to be orderly, and its behavior reduces to a set of rules.
The codes contained within DNA however contain intent. The code sent from DNA contains specific instructions to build a specific thing to specific dimensions. That is intent.
The lone electron of hydrogen is specifically programmed to combine with the outer electron shell of oxygen to form a specific compound known as water. That is intent.
In other words, intent is a subjective human quality that people often project onto the natural world. It is wholly unscientific.
Intent is there. I just described it to you. Intent is the physical outcome of the original code contained within DNA. The code was in info. form and is now in physical form. The process shows specific intent. All bodies don't fit together by accident the same way everytime. There is intention in DNA sending code out to have a part "manufactured". Then you have the theoretical intent of the theoretical designer.
The fabrication of proteins from DNA is just a series of chemical reactions. They're much more complicated than hydrogen combining with oxygen to form water, but they're still just chemical reactions. There's no intent.
Let me legnthen it a bit then. Programs in a computer, even if they evolve on their own, are not arising naturally.
Of course they're not arising naturally. They're arising by simulation of the natural processes of mutation and allele resorting during reproduction combined with natural selection.
DNA is like this. (This is extreamly simplified) Say the note that John wrote the info on is DNA. AL, is the mRNA. Al takes the message to Bill who is the ribosomes. Bill carries out the intent of the message...
Bill (the ribosomes) carries out the instructions in the message. That those instructions reflect the intent of some conscious mind is just your subjective projection of anthropomorphic characteristics onto a chemical reaction.
Again, trees are a product of DNA.
That's beside the point. Tree rings are a product of tree growth governed by DNA combined with the environment over time. Tree rings are not an expression of any specific information contained within DNA.
Code (DNA), spoken language, programs are all forms of comincation. Ask any comincation engineer, or info. theorist, or computer programer, etc, they will tell you that codes are a form of commincation. Codes serve a purpose.
What you should really be saying is that human codes serve a human purpose. A human purpose is not an inherent quality of a code.
Tree rings are not commincating with anything. They don't comunicate with us.
Sure tree rings communicate with us. You cut the tree and the tree rings tell you how old the tree is. If the tree rings didn't communicate with us, then how did we find out how old it was?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by tdcanam, posted 06-22-2006 8:33 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by tdcanam, posted 06-23-2006 10:20 AM Percy has not replied

  
Codegate
Member (Idle past 819 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 125 of 220 (324907)
06-22-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by tdcanam
06-22-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Iblis
I'm just trying to get everything straight in my head. I'm going to break this down into really simple 'DNA'.
Lets say my DNA has only 3 possible configurations: A, B and C.
My ribosomes are set up so that if my DNA is A, B, or C it produces a unique output.
Here's a table:

DNA | ribo | Output
A ----------> 1
B ----------> 2
C ----------> 3
So, although it is an extremely simplified situation, is this what you classify as a code?
ABE: As pointed out by Quetzal, this is really the definition of the 'decoding' algorithm. What I'm asking is actually "Is the DNA in this simplified example a code?"
Edited by Codegate, : Clarifying question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by tdcanam, posted 06-22-2006 9:52 AM tdcanam has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Quetzal, posted 06-22-2006 2:40 PM Codegate has replied
 Message 130 by Jon, posted 06-22-2006 2:54 PM Codegate has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 126 of 220 (324922)
06-22-2006 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by tdcanam
06-22-2006 9:54 AM


Re: Percy
tdcanam writes:
You are misrepresenting what I posted as the definition of code.
Not intentionally. I said "designed by people" instead of "designed by a conscious mind", and I can say that because people are the only example of a conscious mind that we have.
And by the way, code are languages. Exactly languages. All about communication.
Well, codes are languages in the general sense, but let's not confuse the issue. Remember that you're using the definition of code from the field of communications, where the goal is efficiency and determinism. There are qualities possessed by many languages that are not shared by communication codes. For example, there are homonyms like "there", "their" and "they're" which any consciously designed spoken code would avoid (this is aural ambiguity), and many words have multiple definitions for another kind of ambiguity. These kinds of problems are usually avoided in designed codes. After all, what spy would tell another spy, "If I say 'there' then we meet on Tuesday, but if I say 'their' then we meet on Wednesday."
My recent posts explain all this.
And everyone else's recent posts explain what is wrong with "all this".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by tdcanam, posted 06-22-2006 9:54 AM tdcanam has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Jon, posted 06-22-2006 2:49 PM Percy has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 127 of 220 (324931)
06-22-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Codegate
06-22-2006 2:10 PM


Re: Iblis
heh. That would be an algorithm, doncha know. See msg 105.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Codegate, posted 06-22-2006 2:10 PM Codegate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Codegate, posted 06-22-2006 5:08 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 220 (324936)
06-22-2006 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
06-22-2006 9:35 AM


Re: Percy
But it is generally a good idea to shy away from anthropomorphisms where if humans do it it's one thing, but if nature does it it's another, but there are no other distinguishing features.
There's nothing wrong with that. If a beaver builds a damn, its part of nature; if a human does it, it's not par of nature.
Only if you want to accept tdcanam's definition that codes are designed by people with some purpose in mind is the universe not full of encoded information just waiting for us to decipher the codes.
But a code really needs to be compared to something. For example, if I replace every fifth letter of my message with the next letter of the alphabet (here js an eyamplf), we can say it is encoded. To decode it, we'd put it into English (or any other language) and read it as "here is an example."
Now that was an encoded language: language was the starting point, and language was the ending point. In reality it was an encoded version of something that is already a code. But, we have decided that we will not treat it as a code (the base language) for reasons of translation.
If everything is a code, then when we "understand" something, all we are doing is translating it from one code to another. But this doesn't get us very far, because there can never be a "right" answer: we could always code it in some other way. We need something as a "base code". We generally use our language. Then we take all of these "natural codes (which aren't real codes)" and translate them into that language.
Now I think you're confusing codes with language.
Confusing language and code would be like confusing an apple and an apple: they are the SAME! Languages are encoded forms of our ideas, thoughts, emotions, etc.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 06-22-2006 9:35 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 06-22-2006 4:18 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 220 (324937)
06-22-2006 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Percy
06-22-2006 2:31 PM


Re: Percy
and I can say that because people are the only example of a conscious mind that we have.
I highly doubt it. I think that's becoming a little on the side of "people are great!" I would have to believe that many animals (especially other high primates) have concious mind as well.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 06-22-2006 2:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 06-22-2006 4:43 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 220 (324939)
06-22-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Codegate
06-22-2006 2:10 PM


Re: Iblis
I would say it is. You designed it, and we could perhaps extend it farther to replacing each letter of the alphabet with a number.
But if it happens in nature though, it's really not a code. Nature is not starting with a general base code (language, e.g., English) and then translating information from it into a code, and then us translating it out of that code.
Something needs three parts for a code really.
Start->Middle->End (same as start)
If we start at Middle, then we can't really say it was encoded. And if it wasn't encoded, what's there to decode? And if there's nothing for us to decode, and there was nothing encoded, then is there really a "code"?
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Codegate, posted 06-22-2006 2:10 PM Codegate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Codegate, posted 06-22-2006 5:15 PM Jon has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 131 of 220 (324952)
06-22-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Jon
06-22-2006 2:45 PM


Re: Percy
Invictus writes:
There's nothing wrong with that. If a beaver builds a damn, its part of nature; if a human does it, it's not par of nature.
But that's not what you're doing. What you're doing is like saying if a human blocks a river's flow then it's a dam, but if a beaver blocks a river's flow, then it's not a dam. Look at my color/frequency list:
  • red: 428,374 GHz
  • green: 545,077 GHz
  • blue: 666,205 GHz
What you're doing is saying that if I transmit color information using these frequencies then it's a code, but if a star transmits color information using these frequencies then it's not a code.
The mistake you're making isn't drawing a distinction between whether it's part of nature or not. The mistake is to use the distinction of whether or not it's part of nature to draw conclusions about whether or not it's a code. "Not part of nature" is not one of the distinguishing qualities of a code.
Confusing language and code would be like confusing an apple and an apple: they are the SAME! Languages are encoded forms of our ideas, thoughts, emotions, etc.
As I already said in reply to tdcanam, I agree with you, except that the context is codes used for communications. Read the Wikipedia definition of communication codes (Code - Wikipedia), then read the one for language (Language - Wikipedia). They definitely share many of the same concepts, but they also are definitely not synonyms. Besides, this discussion is already finding it difficult enough to make progress without adding an argument about whether codes and languages are the same thing or not.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Jon, posted 06-22-2006 2:45 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Jon, posted 06-23-2006 2:38 AM Percy has replied
 Message 153 by tdcanam, posted 06-23-2006 10:30 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 132 of 220 (324959)
06-22-2006 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Jon
06-22-2006 2:49 PM


Re: Percy
Invictus writes:
and I can say that because people are the only example of a conscious mind that we have.
I highly doubt it. I think that's becoming a little on the side of "people are great!" I would have to believe that many animals (especially other high primates) have concious mind as well.
I'm just using tdcanam's term "conscious mind", but what tdcanam really means is an intelligence. For animals to be pertinent to this discussion you need codes designed by intelligent animals. I'm sure they exist, and while I'm not familiar with this area, I think they'd be very similar to extremely simple codes created by people.
But this drifts off the topic. This particular issue isn't whether people are the only intelligence on the planet, but whether a sample set that consists of only the intelligent organisms from a single planet amidst all the planets of all the solar systems of all the galaxies of all the universe is sufficient to draw the conclusion that we know precisely what a code that is the product of an intelligence would look like.
Both I and Modulous have conceded that DNA possesses some of the qualities of a code produced by people, and that is why it is so tempting to conclude that it was a created rather than evolved design.
An important concern, one already dismissed by tdcanam, is of evolution. Tdcanam evidently dismisses the possibility of evolution, as he has dismissed much else without justification, but let's consider a specific example. Let's say that this gene sequence expresses the intent of the designer to produce protein X:
CCTAGTAACGTTTAC => protein X
Now there's a single point mutation, changing the the fifth nucleotide in the sequence from G to C, and causing the sequence to now produce protein Y:
CCTACTAACGTTTAC => protein Y
The designer intended the DNA to produce protein X. The mutation causes the DNA to instead produce protein Y. What has happened to the intent of the designer? It is gone!
In other words, even if DNA were originally the creation of a designer some billions of years ago, his original message was long ago replaced by evolutionary changes. This means that it cannot reasonably be claimed that DNA contains the message from a designer, nor any of his intent. At best it can only be claimed that the mechanism of DNA encoding, replication and protein production was designed, and that it represents the intent of a designer to produce life that could evolve over time to conform to changing circumstances.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Jon, posted 06-22-2006 2:49 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Jon, posted 06-23-2006 2:38 AM Percy has replied
 Message 154 by tdcanam, posted 06-23-2006 10:48 AM Percy has replied
 Message 155 by tdcanam, posted 06-23-2006 10:52 AM Percy has replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 133 of 220 (324967)
06-22-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by tdcanam
06-21-2006 9:06 AM


Re: Anyone
Although it doesn't look like you've convinced all that many people, no matter how hard you tried , it might still be interesting to pretend that you DID, and re-animate this previous post of your's:
tdcanam writes:
For the sake of moving on to my next point, is it safe to say that most of us agree that DNA is a code that follows 4 levels, which are from the lowest level to the highest; statistics/alphabet, syntax/grammar, semantics/meaning, pragmatics/intent?
Let me know, because once we come to terms with the fact that DNA is a code, and codes work within these 4 levels, we can open a whole new can of worms.
Why not open that can now and show what's in it? Something truly throught-provoking, a true eye-opener, or a simple boring rehash of a horse that was beaten to death decades ago already?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by tdcanam, posted 06-21-2006 9:06 AM tdcanam has not replied

  
Codegate
Member (Idle past 819 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 134 of 220 (324970)
06-22-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Quetzal
06-22-2006 2:40 PM


Re: Iblis
Quetzal writes:
heh. That would be an algorithm, doncha know.
I'd say that an algorithm is a requirement of a code (at least as a code is defined by tdcanam).
Every code needs to have some way to encode/decode it, and the method through which that occurs would be defined by an algorithm.
ABE: I updated my original question to be a little clearer ( I hope ). What I was showing in the table was the decoding algorithm. I should have been asking if DNA in that example was still code.
Edited by Codegate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Quetzal, posted 06-22-2006 2:40 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Quetzal, posted 06-22-2006 5:21 PM Codegate has replied

  
Codegate
Member (Idle past 819 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 135 of 220 (324973)
06-22-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Jon
06-22-2006 2:54 PM


Re: Iblis
Invictus writes:
But if it happens in nature though, it's really not a code.
By this definition, DNA can't be a code seeing as how it occurs in nature.
I'm trying to stick with the definition that tccanam has put forth for a code which has the premise that DNA is in fact a code.
Once we have a firm definition of how we are defining 'code' in the context of this discussion it will be much easier to find pros and cons to the standpoint.
I'm hoping that tccanam can provide this for me in baby steps so that I can understand what is being proposed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Jon, posted 06-22-2006 2:54 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Jon, posted 06-22-2006 11:50 PM Codegate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024