Introduction to Information

quote:

---

Well, nobody says you have to respond. In fact it's generally considered good form to withdraw from the argument if you feel that you're going to be unable to refrain from calling people things like "you retarded monkey."

---

More hypocrisy from Crashfrog!!!Nobody said you had to respond to me either. Good form would have been for you to withdraw if you were going to be unable to refrain from using the VULGAR term ASSHOLE when referring to me specifically.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-17-2004]

I see. In your opinion, then, your writing is so clear and understandable that its impossible for it to be misunderstood?

I didn't use it to refer to you, as anyone can see. Now who's distorting who? I realize now that it's going to be impossible for you not to project your own worst traits onto me. I guess there is no point in responding. I can only hope that the admins take action - on one or both of us as they see fit - to preserve the integrity of debate that until late had characterized this board.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-17-2004]

It sure was.There was NO need for you to chop my sentence in half, cutting out a KEY part of it, leave off the ellipses - despite the requirement to use them, and disregard all of the surrounding context of the paragraph, and then "counter" me with something vastly different than what I talked about - you know, all the stuff you cut out.That's distortion. I called you on it - and your other one. In retaliation, you used the VULGAR term ASSHOLE when referring to me.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-17-2004]

quote:

---

I didn't use it to refer to you, as anyone can see.

---

Who are you trying to fool? Any honest and rational person will clearly see that you DID use the VULGAR term ASSHOLE when referring to me.From several posts on this page: http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....

quote:

---

Crashfrog: Well, then, [DNAunion,] answer the question that you might have understood if you weren't so busy acting like an asshole:

---

quote:

---

Crashfrog: The problem (besides [DNAunion] acting like an asshole at the slighest indication that we're not likely to simply bow to his encyclopedic arguments from authority and odious posting habits)..

---

quote:

---

Crashfrog: I didn't say you were an asshole. I said you were acting like one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, though I'm rapidly becoming disinclined to do so.

---

[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-17-2004]

I didn't see the need to quote what wasn't relevant to my question. If you feel that what I left out addressed what I asked, well, I didn't see that it did. That's either my error or yours. It certainly wasn't a deception. I fail to see how it could be deceptive when the entirety of your post was not 3 messages prior, easily read by any. Referring to your behavior: you assumed the worst rather than give the benefit of the doubt, like an adult would have done.Is there any reason you've attempted to shift the focus to me rather than address the insults you directed at Peter? I can think of a reason but I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt. After all it's possible you've just made an oversight.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-17-2004]

I don't think that the term was necessary referring to behavior or not. When one says "behaving like an asshole" that is very close to calling someone an asshole, too close I think.Neither of you is making yourself look all that adult with this ongoing tirade between you.

---

Common sense isn't

Well, that may be. I'm comfortable retracting that statement, then. However DNAunion's behavior is extremely bellicose and immature. And he has yet to address the statements he made towards Peter, who provided no such provocation. Well, the admins certainly show no signs of interest, so apparently it's fair game.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-17-2004]

quote:

---

Who here thinks that DNAunion's ad hominem attacks are totally inappropriate and clearly against the forum guidelines? Me, that's one...

---

Two.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

Of course there is a reduction in uncertainty in the primary example I gave of what information is.

---

I was, of course, referring to your modified explanation, in which
the uncertainty of which of the remaining cards was selected
remains maximum.Described in that way, uncertainty appears to remain complete
regardless of guessing.Funnily enough, what I was pointing out was that your modified
explanation, to show how predictability wasn't related
to uncertainty, actually shows the opposite. If you try
to re-define predictability to mean something that it doesn't
then shoe-horn that into your example, you also remove the
reduction of uncertainty that you are trying to describe.In any case, at the end of my post, I suggested that should you
wish to separate predictability from reduction in uncertainty
then you should also stop using Shannon-Weaver style information
analysis as evidence for information in DNA. That is, you have
to drop your only substantive citation from the discussion.I also never claimed that was the only definition you were using,
simply that it becomes inapplicable if you wish to say that
predictability has nothing to do with uncertainty.Definition of prediction: I take prediction to mean something
like an informed/educated guess -- as I stated before. If you
mean something different by it then please say what you take it
to mean.

quote:

---

One would wonder why anyone - well, anyone other than a fricking retard of course - would not post the one question he claims the other person hasn’t answered.

---

Since you are unable to answer it, what would be the point?

quote:

---

Look you fricking retard, YOU are the one who asserted I use ONLY ONE definition of information...remember?

---

Perhaps I have mis-understood your position on this. My understanding
of 'everything is basically saying that information is
reduction in uncertainty' is that information only has one form.Oh, and I didn't assert anything, since I provided a reasoned
argument for my position on that issue -- perhaps you missed
it.

quote:

---

TAKE IT UP WITH T. SCHNEIDER

---

Why? You are the one using that work to support your assertion
that DNA contains information.My understanding is that Schneider (and most other biologists)
see 'information' as a useful modelling strategy, rather than
a genuine feature of DNA. And I'm not suggesting cracking it open
and pulling out a lump of information here, before you go off
on one again.

quote:

---

So now you’re resorting to lying? Look, you fricking moron, I have NOT said that I am using only one definition. YOU say that, NOT ME.

---

How come you moan about people chopping your quotes short, and
then do it to other people.I explained the above, and hence was not asserting it, but
supporting my interpretation.That is, by stating that all information definition boil down
to 'reduction in uncertainty' (they are the flip side(s??) of
that coin), you are using only one defintion.You then say 'No I'm not' -- as usual with no support (or do you
think posting out-of-context quotations from college texts
is support?)You are also using an 'algorithmic' information concept, which
is very different from reduction of uncertainty.

quote:

---

Can you read, you fricking retarded monkey? Are you too damned stupid to understand that an "s" on the end of the word DEFINTION makes it plural? Seriously, I am asking, because you show all the signs of being too fricking stupid to tie your own shoes.

---

Well ... I do wear slip-ons

quote:

---

I have used multiple definitions that are different sides of the same coin. The coin, which is common to all, is reduction in uncertainty. I have not claimed that definitions related to that "coin" are all the same: just one single definition. If YOU want to claim that, feel free but it will be YOU saying so, NOT ME.

---

See above -- oh and stating that this is MY interpretation of what
you have said is agreeing that it's what I am saying rather
than you. I agree. You say you are using multiple defintions of
information, and that they all mean 'reduction in uncvertainty'.

quote:

---

Perhaps you have a different understanding of 'flip side of the same coin'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

No, perhaps YOU do.

---

Eh?? Different is different -- perhaps you are simply saying
that you DO have a different interpretation, but that you are
right and I am wrong?

I thought we weren't supposed to put forward unsupported
assertions

What does 'frickin' mean, anyway?To be honest, while I appreciate the interest,
insults along those lines don't phase me. I'm
interested in the subjects on this site and even when
faced with monemental egos and/or stupidity (not DNAunion
before s/he starts) I don't comment on that -- it's non-productive.

I had a sense already that you were a bigger man than to respond to insults.I may not be. DU explained what he found objectionable about my behavior but he hasn't come close to explaining what it is about you that he finds insult-worthy, and I don't like the idea of boorish behavior going unchallenged on the board. But apparently I could shoot off a flare and not attract admin attention to this stuff.

Considering some admin interventions I have seen it
is a little odd, but ....