|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ID, Information, and Human Perception | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
The complexity of large sets of non-redundant protein sequences is measured. This is done by estimating the Shannon entropy as well as applying compression algorithms to estimate the algorithmic complexity. The estimators are also applied to randomly generated surrogates of the protein data. Our results show that proteins are fairly close to random sequences. The entropy reduction due to correlations is only about 1%. However, precise estimations of the entropy of the source are not possible due to finite sample effects. Compression algorithms also indicate that the redundancy is in the order of 1%. These results confirm the idea that protein sequences can be regarded as slightly edited random strings. We discuss secondary structure and low-complexity regions as causes of the redundancy observed. The findings are related to numerical and biochemical experiments with random polypeptides. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.
So, if information isn't something that really exists. Would you mind to explain me the terms (and why these scientist use them?):
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
Yaro writes:
Some remarks about the assumed similarities between alphabet and DNA soup: In another thread I brought up Alphabet soup. If I were eating alphabet soup, and the letters floated around and spelled out the word, I dunno, "Jesus", that would be a perfect example of an ireducably complex system, and new informataion coming from nothing.
But in truth that bird is no different from the rock. Just another asemblage of matter.
Blending and particulate systems [Abler, 1989], a lot of water molecules give water properties that differ from any of their constituents.... I think IDers are mistakeing human assigned "meaning" for reality. If we were not here to intepret it would this "information", or "ireducible complexity", exist at all? There are several reasons to suggest that there are different types of realities. This doesn't mean that there have to be non-fysical realities, but that there are 'levels of reality' to discern. Even Churchland differs an auto-connected way of knowing from a hetero-connected way (first person versus third person view). But, he fails to point out why consciousness not can be considered as a separate reality. Seperate realities in the way a particulate system has.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
I think the root of the problem lies in the "information" idea. ID'ers seem to find something special in the concept of information, DNA as information, and so on. But what they don't seem to understand is that we identify this information as stuff that is meaningfull to us, as humans!
So, information is identified by the meaningfullness to us.
I was saying that ID'ers are confusing information for human assigned "meaning". They are different things all together.
So, information and meaning are totally different concepts. Can you explain me this? Maybe a definition of 'information' and of 'meaning' would help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
Yes there is, the alphabet soup word relates to a human imposed concept, as does the DNA "word".
Which Jesus are you talking about? If there is a one-to-one relationship I've to have the same person in mind I guess. Okay, I got it. A DNA 'word' is a human imposed concept, genes are a concept, proteins are a concept.
But I guess you could say, natural selection is pasta which is able to float. Because not all of them can.
Inapproriate comparision, natural selection has to do with the 'concepts' genes and proteins.
Again, the meaning is irrelivant. It makes no difference if the word is "whakhj" or "jesus". The meaning if imposed by humans.
Genes and proteins as meanings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
Information, is stuff like DNA. I suppose in it's simplest definition, some form of stored data.
Are you saying that information exists, even without an interpreter?
... Everything potentialy has information in it given the right interpreter. meaningfull information
You can divide information in meaningfull information and information without meaning. Maybe it's nice to differ 'probability or embarrassment' versus 'accordancy with reality'. The reason why I shouldn't opt for the latter is that it hollows out the concept of information. There is no way to capture 'structure' within such a definition. Do you think there exists something like 'structure'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
Yaro writes:
So, information as ordinary data arrays, but called information in the appearance of an interpreter.
Information necessitates an interpreter, or else it is not information. Saviourmachine writes:
The first option takes a particular point of view into account, it assumes a possibility to embarras the spectator. In compression techniques information is defined according prediction chance. A picture with random black and white spots contains the greatest amount of information.
You can divide information in meaningfull information and information without meaning. Maybe it's nice to differ 'probability or embarrassment' versus 'accordancy with reality'. Yaro writes:
That's a better suggestion. Perhapse, I am that natural selection. Choosing words that only mean something to me. If the aim with your analogy was to stress the difference between 'meaning' and 'information' like you defined them, then I want to suggest to leave it by this. If the aim with you analogy was to stress the similarity between 'information' in alphabet and DNA soup, then you've to explain why the structure involved is a product of interpreted information in both cases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
Yaro writes:
Structure I think we showld look further back than DNA soup even, lets go as far back as the elemnts. As all matter is an arangement of them. Well, alphabet soup, ocasionaly produces words we understand. However, this word production does not mean all the other things aren't words also. After all, it is humans which give more meaning to a letter arangement such as "Jesus" as uposed to "ahskdhuw".DNA is a sort of data stack, okay. But it's data with structure and so it's not data an sich. Arrangements of matter is matter that's structured, not matter an sich. To say that it's pure matter, or that in truth everything is just matter isn't addressing the problem. There is a difference between unorganized data and organized data. Hierarchy and recursivitySystems have a sort of hierarchy. There are operators that aren't functioning on the lower or the upper levels. Here our human viewpoint can decieve us, because we can't see every level at once. Structure from which parts can reused as sub-structures are recursive, a typical example is human language. That's something that every intellect would notice, don't you think so? HolismAnd what I already mentioned, summed up in the popular phrase: "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". Self-organizationOf course, organized data doesn't will organize spontaneously. There has to be at least some self-organizing organism behind it. Maybe you think I want to let you say that there have to be ID because of the observed hierarchy. But, that's a little bit too fast. First we've to examine how the mechanism of self-organization did become part of our universe. The existence of information What I want to stress is that there is structure and self-organizing even without human observers. I regard self-organizing as a kind of probing, a primitive kind of observing. To assign the term information to that particular data set is a small step by then. Links:It's a scientif challenge: "Towards a theory of everything?" pdf html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 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 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
The goal is to make others happy, others, also God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024