|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ID, Information, and Human Perception | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: I agree that there is organization and structure independent of human observation. However, this organization and structure occurs independent of the presence of an intelligence. It is a consequence of physics and chemistry, not foresight. The organization that humans create is non-reproductive, such as watches or automobiles. Their constructions relies solely upon our action. For organisms, they already contain the necessary mechanisms for replication without outside help, other than chemicals they need for replication. Also, the "information" that they need for doing this is also chemical in nature. This type of information is different than information created by intelligence. For example, it is not the composition of the ink (chemical) that matters, but rather the abstract forms of the ink stain. In cells, the "chemical makeup of the ink" does matter, with DNA being the ink. A cell can only probe, observe, and interpret within the guidelines set out within it's DNA. If A happens, B HAS to happen. There is no decision making process. The real information within DNA is which mutations are selected for by the environment, or rather the shaping of the DNA sequence by evolutionary mechanisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
No need to apologize, it was I who provoked you, and came across as a bit hard, not you. I understand your view of god and the universe, and I find it to be a most pleasant one! But personally I still can't find any more comfort or meaning in beeing created by a higher power for some goal, beacuse I just can't see that goal. Rather than the pure god-less way.
I guess the "goal" is the question "what is the meaning of life?".Which so far has been unanswered, and I belive it will remain so. No possible answer will be good enough, since you can always add another "why" after you have heard the explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3554 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
It's not my point to prove ID.
It was only to disprove the reasoning:
-> so, no ID without human perception Yaro writes:
Random data. Radioactive decay.
What would you consider unorganized data? ... Could you show an example of disorganized data? Everything in this universe is potential data, and can be viewd as organized in some context.
Everything is usable as data. Our organization of it isn't just a random process. It's reflecting the organization of the structures in the outward world itself.
I see nothing intrinsicaly special about DNA. Could you explain further?
It's self-organizing, DNA is indeed intrinsically special. Yes, but recursivity does not necessitate intellect. For example, if you go out to arizona you see these crazy rock formations. Alot of them are incredibly complex structures.
I was in Uyuni and saw this arbol de piedra (the photo isn't mine by the way). They are indeed incredible. But I don't see the recursivity you mentioned, the stone doesn't show hierarchy.... So you see, the stone relied on simpler sub-structures, to produce even more comples structures. Yet this process involved no intelect. It seems you and I are thinking the same about being able to prove or disprove ID in the context of information. Let us argue about the way information is part of our universe (not about the Originator). I want to stress that if I'm speaking about organized it doesn't have to mean that there is a Organizer, if I'm speaking about information it doesn't have to mean that there is a Perciever, if I'm speaking about structure it doesn't have to mean that there is Somebody 'Who did it'. I don't know if you will understand this, but you're treating human perception as something special. I can see it as a product of a self-organizing process that exists in the universe. It's an extension of the same process that accounts for crystal formation.. Although, if it is like that, then we've to explain why there occur such phase-shifts like the ability of reasoning and the appearance of self-awareness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3554 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
The goal is to make others happy, others, also God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3554 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
Loudmouth writes:
The outcome, the phenotype, the abstract form, does matter too. Natural selection doesn't select on the genome directly.
This type of information is different than information created by intelligence. For example, it is not the composition of the ink (chemical) that matters, but rather the abstract forms of the ink stain. In cells, the "chemical makeup of the ink" does matter, with DNA being the ink. A cell can only probe, observe, and interpret within the guidelines set out within it's DNA. If A happens, B HAS to happen. There is no decision making process.
And natural selection? And humans? What's so special about a decision making process? The big question is: How does self-organization arise? (Even for crystal formation.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
Why ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3554 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
To be happy is fun.
Why? Because it's the same (to be happy = fun). Why? The proposition (x=x)=true is a valid reasoning. Why? Because I feel happy with using this kind of reasoning. Why? Because it's kind of fun. Why? (see above) The ability to have always a next question, doesn't lead to no answer at all. There is an answer, a circular one. And maybe the only possibility to become sure is revelation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi, Human perception and the ability to reason and become sentient is indeed a mystery. Order out of Caos and Caos into order seems to permeate the universe. Conciousness what exactly is it? Is a stone Concious? No? or is it's conciousness invisible to me. Like the Ents in LOTR. mooooovvvvveee slllooowwlly. Maybe everything in the universe is concious we just are not aware of it. To lable DNA special is redundant if one believes that existance it'self is "special". What is special? I am facinated by these thoughts of how energy and matter begat self awarness and conciousness. Regardless of how it happened, it did happen. Question is......is it happening else where as well? Your thoughts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
Careful there. You didn't use circular reasoning. You just defined two words to have the exakt same meaning! So in effect you said nothing at all. Or maybe you tried to say that you are satisfied with not asking questions, and that that makes you happy, but I suspect that is not the case
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
quote: For crystal formation its easy, as in all similar processes, it will place itself in the form that requires the least energy, and where it is in equlibrium. If it is not in a stable form, atoms inside it will diffuse to other positions like water flowing downhill. Where it will be in an even less energetic state, beeing in equlibrium. Endlessly advanced structures will form with just a few simple rules. Different effects are stronger than others at different temperatures, different concetrations, different ranges. Some atoms move more slowly than others, through diffusion. Some carry heat or current better than others. Combine all of these factors and almost anything you can imagine is possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: No it doesn't, it is soley concerned with traits capable offacilitating or debilitating environmental interactions. In evolutionary terms they have to be heritable, but withinthe single generation of a bowl of alphabet soup this aspect is missing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
DNA is NOT data with structure ... it's just a chain
of base-pairs. It can be viewed AS data, but has no syntax (any sequenceis possible). The organisation is a human perception super-imposed overthe chemical found in almost all known cells. Holism helps here .... life is an emergent property of the chemical systems that reside within the cell. It's not data processing ... its chemistry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3554 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
It [DNA] can be viewed AS data, but has no syntax (any sequence is possible)... The organisation is a human perception super-imposed over the chemical found in almost all known cells.
The organisation doesn't exist only as a human perception. The 'perceptor' here is nature itself. It's data processing resulting in something nature can percieve. For example: time is typical something that human experience, but it's also something inherently existing in the real world even without us. DNA does even have semantics, not any sequence is valid, just as human writings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unseul Inactive Member |
I reckon a book that may interest you greatly would be Richard Dawkins, the selfish gene. Not so much for all the biology in it (although it is very interesting, and seems to fit the data) but it also describes how replication could have come about. He also offers up different possibilities in his other works. (You could probably come across these explainations on the internet also)
Unseul Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: This isn't true. The syntax for DNA sequences is the environment. The validity of the sequence depends on its benefice WITHIN an environment. Human writing has an agreed on abstraction that allows us to interpret language. Language is also forward looking. DNA has no such level of abstraction, but rather a trial and error system through the environment that communicates information to the genome. Also, DNA is not looking at future events, only what is affecting it now. DNA and human language are quite different, and they do not share a common definition of "syntax".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024