crashfrog writes:
the main thing is that you said that code is meaningful information.
If that's the intent of a code, yes.
If that's the intent of a code? You clearly stated it is! So why are you talking about intent? I'm talking about the code itself not about a 'product' code is creating!
But codes are not automatically meaningful in themselves. It's often possible to find meaning in things that cannot possibly have it; I reccomend you go cloud-gazing to observe this phenomenon. As much as a cloud might look like a rabbit or Abraham Lincoln, it's ludicrous to suggest that cloud actually contains meaning.
This is a bit funny.... all what you are doing is you are copying information with meaning - because you
know how the rabbit looks like! If you wouldn't know it and said the cloud looks like a rabbit, it would be meaningless because you don't know how the rabbit looks like. So you are
again just using information to create another information. That means -> if cloud is a "meaningless code" and a 'rabbit-image' is 'hidden' meaning, you will need another code to find out that meaning. -> if cloud is something (meaningless information is just something, it's not information) and 'rabbit-image' is the 'hidden' meaning you will need to know rabbit -> you will need to know information which tells you that meaning. Understand? It's everytime absolutely the same situation. You are always using information to create information.
But in this case you disagree with Percy's example...
No, I agree with it. Genetic codes do not contain meaning; they're part of a mechanical/chemical process that generates protiens.
Hahah... now you are saying codes do not contain meaning, but some pages ago you were saying absolutely something
different, do you remember??
Message 286
quote:
No, codes are not meaningless
So what is this??? Unbelievable. You are changing phrases as you like!!! But nevermind - I have to tell you - well, repeat it - that if it is so, if the code do not contain meaning, than it is not information ! It's just a bunch of numbers. You will need another code (information) that tells you the meaning of that bunch of numbers - so as mentioned above, you are still using information to create information !
The gene for blue eyes doesn't actually code for blue eyes, remember - it codes for protiens that give rise to blue eyes. That's all genetic codes do - generate protiens. That's not "meaning", that's protien.
Well, a bit funny once again... YES, you are right, that's not meaning, that's meaningful information! So what? So I have to ask you why proteins give rise to blue eyes?? Why genetic code generates proteins??? Oh no. Tell me one thing - what's your point in this example? I still can't see creation of information without using information.
My question is... who said so at the begenning when there was no human?
It's simply a consequence of the laws of physics being the way that they are. There's a gene for blue eyes because certain protiens, when placed in the chemical envrionment of the human iris, reflect blue light.
That's just a consequence of the physics of the universe. The gene doesn't "mean" anything, it generates a specific protien.
No, you are writing about something else. Still the same, just in different color. Once again - message 295: your quote>
quote:
In Percy's example, because 0001 codes for protiens that give rise to blue eye color. Why does 0001 code for blue eye proteins, and not 0011, for instance? Because Percy says so, and it's his example, and the precice configuration of his code is irrelevant, because codes are arbitrary.
Do you understand what are you saying? Why laws of physics are as they are... You are saying (applying what you said in the quote) that the laws of physics are the way that they are because
"somebody" (in your quote it would be Percy) said so!!! But at that moment there was no human to say so -
so WHO WAS THAT???
But there were 2 question - 2 examples.... first one "Why did he draw it?", second one "Was he able to draw it if he didn't know how it looks like and didn't know what he is going to draw"
No, there weren't. Let's look at what you said:
quote:
b) Lets do a small exercise/example. Take a paper. Draw a circle. ...and now... tell me why it is a circle? Why it is not a square?
You're free to change your examples anyway you like, but please don't misrepresent the situation. I answered the question that you asked. Your original example did not include any of the additional information you have since added.
message 278 ! That is a reply to
your post so why are you behaving as you wouldn't know about second question??? So
who is misrepresenting something, crashfrog?
And as I showed you, Percy used information to create information... so your example is nonsense.
I'm not sure I truly understand.
Remember that Percy was explaining how you could get new information from already-existing information through random processes. Percy wasn't trying to address
how information entered the universe. Don't fault Percy because you don't understand the question he was answering.
Do you think so? Well done ! Than you can tell me how the information entered the universe. Thank you !
That is the most important part
™ Version 4.2