Data, Information, and all that....

I came across this recently:"Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."The research is actually from a doctoral thesis by Graham Rowinson
at Nottingham University (1976), but it made me think.Several very different orderings of the same data can provide
exactly the same information.Not because of anything in the data, but because our minds
interpret the data into something we recognise.I think this shows that data and information are separate
(not entirely independent, but not the same thing).This means that ANY change in data COULD be an increase information regardless if whether the data increases or decreases and may
not change at all.Not sure whether that is a useful thought or not now ... still
that's never stopped me before

Interestingly this jumbing doesn't work in Hebrew.The language is apparently compressed already
by the removal of vowels (or some such).

quote:

---

The reason for this apparent "identity" between data and information is that you've forgotten about the presence of the bridging feature - the software!

---

I've not forgotten about it -- I am pointing it out
sepifically as the reason that data and information are
not directly related.The extrusion of information from data requires an
interpretive act ... so information in this sense cannot
be applied to DNA, or if it is, it must be recognised
that it is the interpretation of the data that forms the
informaiton, not the data itself.Adding or removing a base changes the data, it may or may not
changed the information.The same addition/deletion could represent a gain or a loss
of inforamtion dpnednig on context.

By data in connection to DNA I meant the base
sequence.In that way any change to base sequence represents a
change of data.The proteins that are coded for might not be changed
by a substitution (for example) and so the information
has not changed.The same MAY be true of additions or deletions given
the right context.If I were seeking intelligence in an assumed design or code
I would expect a single direct traceable mapping -- maybe that's
just me.

I cannot read hebrew even without scrambling, just passing on
something that I read here:PeopleWhich also suggests that spanish isn't that much of a problem.My thoughts based upon the above page are that recognition
has more to do with familiarity with the unscrambled word
.
Unusual words (or jargon) are harder to decypher ... different
for everyone 'cause we all have somewhat different backgrounds
and reading habits.Words which are almagamations of more than one word also
prove difficult ... like mhslaatnuger for example.

DNA doesn't 'contain' information.Nothing does.Information can be gleaned from data, given sufficient
surrounding context.DNA is a chemical ... it reacts with the chemicals
around it, and in cells forms a part of a highly
complex, self-replicating system.The emergent property of such systems is an 'organism'.

quote:

---

An organism's DNA is information even without us around. If it weren't, then a mouse could be born from a chicken, or a whale from a cactus, or a human from a moth

---

Hydrogen must contain an awful lot of information then,
since of all the chemicals in existence hydrogen can
only form a small portion of them....and what about carbon ...

That's a physics specific definition, please show that
it is relvant to biological systems.

If a chemical process that is, given the right
environment, deterministic can imply that the
underlying chemicals contain information about the
reactions thay make, then hydrogen atoms must also.Given the right environment large numbers of different
compounds can be formed when hydrogen interacts with
other elements or compounds.Where do YOU draw the line between basic chemistry
and information.It is not at the level of the molecular structure
(which you implied by referring to a physics definition
of information).

Which definition of information are you using, and
in what way does it apply to a complex
chemical system?

quote:

---

That DNA contains information is a no-brainer - it's completely obvious - it's self-evident - it needs no support.

---

So it's an assumption on your part then?Your definition of information was 'reduction in uncertainty', with
the metric being that the less uncertainty there is the
more information is present.By this definition there is very little information in
DNA.1) You require a complete genome to be able to tell which organism
the genome is for.2) Even then you would need to know the proteins formed and the
timing of such, within the cell to determine which organism
you have the genome for.3) It is impossible to tell the next base in a sequence from
ANY previous sequence unless you already know the sequence ...
hence in an reduction of uncertainty sense there is no information
contained in a DNA sequence.

Symbol sequences do not contain information.Show this sequence of symbols to a 3 year-old or
anyone who is not able to understand written
english.The information in this sequence is in my head, I have
used a common coding format to convey that, but for the
information to be relayed it relies upon the same coding
ability/codex to be in the reader's head.The sequence does NOT inherently contain information, the
information is a mixture of the sequence and the learned
ability to interpret the sequence.Any arbitrary sequence can be used to convey information
provided that both the originator and the recipient
share the 'plan'.This is NOT the case with DNA.DNA is a chemical, it does what it does ... and sometimes
the combination of chemicals produced form what we
call life.It does not CODE for an organism in anything but an analagous
sense.

Funnily enough, not having access to the book
sort of makes it hard to find the connection
that it suggests ... the title tells very little
apart ... one could say in contains insufficient
information.Perhaps an on-line reference covers the material?
Or perhaps you would like to answer the question
based upon your understanding of the material?

Perhaps you could elaborate on the logic that is
so glaringly obvious that I am missing it.I am aware that 'information' is used in an analgous sense
when referring to genomes, and I am also aware that the
term 'information' is used (in a different context) to indicate
the 'size' of a genome. That information usage is the
data-processing one and is referring to the number of bits
required to store the sequences.Perhaps we are at odds with the definitions of information,
many and multi-farious as they be.You have stated that information is the reduction in uncertainty.Whose uncertainty or the uncertainty of what is reduced
by DNA?If I were to randomly add bases to a DNA sequence and
the emerging sequence became closer and closer to
one that produces a known protein would I be increasing
the information (as you see it) in the genome?'Redcution in uncertainty' and 'template for organism' are two
very different views of 'information' which is closer to
your view?My normal 'information' concept is a soft-systems one, in
which 'meaning' or some similar concept is required.

quote:

---

...if you want a particular protein to be produced then you must input the precise amino acid sequence. Otherwise the PAM randomly selects amino acids and assembles them - who knows what will come out! ....

---

And there's the rub!What if, from the cells point of view, it doesn't care what
proteins are produced?If ANY group of amino acids can be 'plugged' together to
form a protein, and that protein may or may not cause reactions
that help to maintain the cell, then the information isn't in
the DNA sequence (that's raw data).If any DNA sequence can produce a protein ... or almost any
at least ... how is that information?How can you tell the difference between something designed
by an intelligence to do a job, and something that adapted to
do that job because it is fundamentally based upon a completely
generic, non-specific protein manufacturing capability?Doesn't the simple fact that amino acids can be 'plugged' together
in any order suggest a lack of specificity in the DNA->protein
system?And there's not even a 1:1 mapping between amino-acid sequence
and protein.The only way that information makes any sense biologically
(to me anyhow) is in the emergent properties that define
different cells. That is a function of the interaction of the
proteins, not a function of what proteins are manufactured
off DNA 'templates'.