Data, Information, and all that....

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. Maybe you should begin stopping now?

​

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

​

It is the human mind - with its vast processing capabilities including memory, pattern recognition, and structuring software - that is able to tkae teh gralbed msseage and "FIX IT". Eliminate the existing software in the human brain and I'd like to see the feat accomplished (I really would but I won't be holding my breath!).

​

By the way, programming a computer to accomplish this won't cut it either since, obviously, the computer program is merely a substitute for the human software. I'm afraid the 'intelligence requirement' is there to stay - certainly in this case.

​

The study is interesting for other reasons but it doesn't do squat to support evolution.

​

Sorry to rain on your parade, Peter.

​

Joralex

"Here's a much more reasonable explanation: the data or information content of the words is not in the words, it's in our heads. Therefore it's easy for our heads to reconstruct the meaning because the meaning is already there."

​

"One example of where this breaks down is in words that are composed of the same letters such as tarp and trap. One can usually coax out the meaning due to context, but I suspect crash is correct: If the reader has a solid grasp of the langauge, he will be able to unjumble the mess, often unconsciously." I didn't think it possible for two people to simultaneously miss the exact same point.

​

Uhhh ... crash ... if it's "in your head" then may I ask, what IS IT that is "in your head"?

​

That "meaning" that you speak of is a combination of things formally called 'vocabulary, syntax and semantics'. Nowhere except associated with intelligence are such things found.

​

And the reason that we would be able to distinguish between 'tarp' and 'trap' is due to context considerations (as you've recognized) maybe mixed with some forward-scanning. Such actions are directly linked with an intelligence and, therefore, the rain continues on the Naturalistic parade.

​

Joralex

Interestingly this jumbing doesn't work in Hebrew.
The language is apparently compressed already
by the removal of vowels (or some such). Now that's an interesting observation, Peter!

​

Seriously, my background includes pattern recognition theory and one of the aspects that we investigated was that of 'redundant/extraneous information'. For example, if you saw the tip - and only the tip - of the nose of someone's face, would that information allow you to recognize who that person was? Probably not. So, at what point do you have "just enough" information to allow a positive recognition? Such was the nature of the questions that we investigated back then.

​

Applying this here, how much may words (or even a language) be "compressed" while retaining recognizability? And, as you've observed, it appears that some languages have a higher 'compressibility potential' than others.

​

Now, isn't all this much better than that ridiculous notion of 'evolution'?

​

Joralex

I've not forgotten about it -- I am pointing it out
sepifically as the reason that data and information are
not directly related. The 'data' is the "material carrier" of the information. Naturalistically speaking, show me any information that does NOT have a carrier.

​

I'm afraid that within Naturalism you cannot separate the two, Peter; i.e., the two are 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. Precisely my point! Tell me, WHAT performs the 'interpretation'? DNA encodes the information for the assembly of proteins (via base sequences) and something has to interpret those base sequences as meaning exactly what the code intends it to mean. But that interpretative act is conducted by a system that is ALSO encoded within the DNA. The mother of all chicken-n-egg?Adding or removing a base changes the data, it may or may not
changed the information. That is an unsubstantiated assumption. In fact, while the contents in your brain are able to help you retain the information in 'To be, or not be to', changing a base will likely yield an interpretation producing B instead of A. The quantity of information may have remained the same but it is the quality of information that determines life.The same addition/deletion could represent a gain or a loss
of inforamtion dpnednig on context. Again, the quantity of information may have remained the same but it is the quality (i.e., the specificity) of information that determines many aspects connected with life. Thus, you are partly correct but the important part that you're missing is why the rain continues on the Naturalist's parade.

​

Joralex

"Are you saying that languages have not evolved from common ancestors either?" Not at all. The same thing applies to languages as does to organisms, namely, no one (certainly not I) disputes that 'evolution' occurs. 'Evolution' as in 'change'. But evolutionists want to promote that 'because things change, this supports the notion that Earth's entire flora and fauna had a common, single-celled ancestor'. Such a statement has exceeded the realm of science and has entered into the domain of metaphysics. That has been, and continues to be, my position in the matter.

​

Likewise, there is no doubt that there has been 'evolution' of languages. Languages change and "new" languages ("new species") have emerged from previous ones, etc ... But the origin of language is as difficult a problem today as is the origin of life. 'Difficult', that is, to the Naturalist.

​

As for me : I ain't gots no problema!

​

Joralex

DNAunion:

​

I haven't much time these days so I've been mostly just reading. Anyhow, I had to vent a bit by saying that I find utterly AMAZING how some people will argue the obvious because to not do so would weaken their case (and they know this).

​

That point is illustrated here with you having to explain the transparently clear fact that there is a huge amount of information in the genome. Heck, the experts in the field don't dispute this - their fight is over how it got there. Nobel Laureate Francis Crick has suggested that 'aliens did it'. Die-hard materialistic Naturalists say that 'random mutations and natural selection' did it. However, to argue the point of there being information is ... well ... they might as well be arguing the point that there's really not this thing called 'gravity'. Absolutely mind-boggling!

​

Of course I've seen this attitude many times before in different arenas. For instance, one way to avoid discussing the person of Jesus Christ is to simply argue - repeatedly and blindly - that such a person never existed. Yet to do this requires ignoring more evidence than there is that Caeser ever crossed the Rubicon but, hey, that's still easier than the alternative, right? Similarly, parroting the "non-existence of information" is a heck-of-a-lot easier than trying to explain where it came from. But that's a long story so without further ado I say, hasta la vista, baby!

​

Joralex

Hiya NosyNed:

​

"Kind of never got time for that"? Hmmm...

​

First, my previous post clearly indicated that I was short on time these days. Also, I did once (several months ago) invite you to a one-on-one discussion regarding information/specified complexity - remember? Just making sure since you seem to have forgotten that little episode. Finally, time being precious as it is, do you have specific questions in mind or is this the ol' shotgun approach?

​

Joralex

"Which definition of information are you using, and in what way does it apply to a complex chemical system?" Oh, no - you're one of those arguing for the non-existence of information in the genome, right?

​

You ask "which definition of information am I using" and my reply to you is let's not waste too much time here and simply use some good ol' common sense, okay?

​

One thing about information that even laymen may understand is that information provides a specific definition of something that may exist in a variety of states. For example, a standard deck of playing cards may be arranged in 52! (52-factorial) different arrangements. If you knew the specific arrangement of those 52 cards then you have "information" - you've eliminated the uncertainty in the card sequence that existed prior to that knowledge.

​

Now apply the same thinking to a protein or a DNA molecule. In the case of proteins, there is no known mechanism that favors one arrangement of amino acids over another. Yet only very specific arrangements are useful to life (in that they make up proteins) while the vast majority of possible amino acid arrangements are total duds.

​

You're a smart lad ... think you can put the rest of it together from here, Peter?

​

Joralex

Perhaps you could elaborate on the logic that is
so glaringly obvious that I am missing it. Perhaps you merely have a deeper knowledge/understanding of the topic than the average person does.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. You are correct in that the term 'information' is used to mean different things (as are many words in all languages).Perhaps we are at odds with the definitions of information,
many and multi-farious as they be. No, I wouldn't say that we were "at odds". I would say (as my initial post indicated) that this being a very complex subject, and time being limited, it is best to use common sense and not quibble about the obvious.

​

'Information' is often thought of as containing 'instructions' for something. You would gather 'information' if you wished to travel from an address in Paris, France to an address in San Francisco, United States of America, without getting lost, right?

​

Similarly, you would need 'information' if you wanted to successfully operate the Protein Assembler Machine (PAM). The PAM works like this : you input a specific sequence of different amino acids and the PAM assembles these amino acids in the precise sequential order that you entered them. Of course, 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! Therefore, good 'information' is needed to operate the PAM.You have stated that information is the reduction in uncertainty. This is, as you know, one way to look at it.Whose uncertainty or the uncertainty of what is reduced by DNA? All of this relates to the elimination of possible contingencies. The subject is, as you may know, Peter, vast. Amino acids, for example, have no preferred combinatorial affinity and, hence, any sequence is equally probable. So why are only certain sequences produced? Because the 'information' - the 'instructions' - in the DNA eliminates the myriads of possible combinations and allows only those combinations that are specified to be produced.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? You say something later that answers this question ...'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. ... and this is what I alluded to a second ago. The concept of 'information' in the Shannon (statistical) sense is fine for data transmission, storage, compressibility, etc... but it is not adequate for a comprehensive definition of 'information'.

​

Your statement correctly asserts that there are other aspects of 'information' that must be considered in these types of discussions (e.g., discussing the genome). Specifically, semantical and syntactical aspects, as well as others, are all part of the bigger picture (and a vast picture it is!).

​

Joralex