Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How is it that we view IC and ID?
Gerhard
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 47 (9610)
05-13-2002 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Joe Meert
05-13-2002 8:46 PM


Joe: Let's go back to the eight theorems I put up on one of these posts. First off, the "bold assertion" that these were drummed up to put ID in the classroom does not hold. I am not arguing evolution is untrue on the paltry excuse that all the definitions were made up to get a worldview across. That really sounds like a way to try and circumvent something you cannot argue. Do we agree on these theorems? If not, then perhaps, and this is what I've been asking all along, you could point out a case where the definition is untrue. That is, point out a case where we cannot trace information back to its mental source. If you are saying we cannot trace the information in DNA back to a mental source than I would ask you where it came from that it could be so original. DNA is not information and I don't think the question is whether self replicating molecules could form without an intelligent source. This is obviously possible. The question is, how is DNA's code not information in the sense provided by the definition? Does it have a code? Yes. Does the code have a convention? Yes. Does it fufill the five heirarchical levels. Well, it explains in code specific protiens in specific orders that must be produced. The code has meaning and the intention to communicate some kind of instruction to the ribosomes in order for their to be protien production. That covers statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Well the others we must assume- but the assumption does not seem to wild- that it originated from a mental source. Not the DNA but the code expressed by it. That is why I don't see how your question is the "real question."
About the general relativity and all that- well first of all, these are not my theories. Therefore, the argument that I would need to know something beyond the basics to form a quantum theory do not hold. I am not forming the theory only spreading the word. These theorems are generally accepted in the realm of information sciences as to what information is. If it comes down to who I should believe is really telling the truth about what is "most generally accepted" than I don't much care what either of you (you or Dr. Gitt) say. Afterall, Galileo's theorys about gravity were not the most generally accepted of his day. Sticking only to what the majority says is right is the root of dogmatic beliefs. If you cannot agree with the definition I am merely asking you to point out an example of how the definition is false. So far you have not done this. If you can point out an example where information as is understood by those terms does not come from a mental source than that is what I am willing to see. That would nullify the grounds on which to make the assumption that if DNA is a medium for information then the information it contains must come from an intelligent source. If those grounds were nullified by some examples that refute the definition than I would just forget the whole thing. For if we found instances in which the Law of Conservation of Energy does not hold we could no longer call it a law and go back to the drawing board. But who knows, maybe you know more about information sciences than Dr. Gitt and others and have the holy grail of examples?
I have not just simply said that biological information is the result of an intelligent source. I have said that based on what we know about information it does not seem incorrect to assume the information in DNA originates from a mental source like all other information. All you have done is told me you don't ascribe a special case of information ( that within DNA) to a mental source, obviously because of a personal belief. You have given no viable reasons for why it cannot be assumed information in DNA does not have the same nature as every other kind of information we see. You have grudgingly accepted it to be information, hence, the quotes around information, for the sake of not having to go along with the task of either agreeing with, or really refuting the definition.
-Gerhard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Joe Meert, posted 05-13-2002 8:46 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Joe Meert, posted 05-13-2002 11:23 PM Gerhard has replied
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 05-14-2002 11:21 AM Gerhard has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 17 of 47 (9613)
05-13-2002 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Gerhard
05-13-2002 10:54 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gerhard:
[B]Joe: Let's go back to the eight theorems I put up on one of these posts. First off, the "bold assertion" that these were drummed up to put ID in the classroom does not hold. [/QUOTE]
JM: Well, considering that your source was Answers in Genesis who make no bones about their political goals, I don't see how strong a counter position you can take!
quote:
I am not arguing evolution is untrue on the paltry excuse that all the definitions were made up to get a worldview across.
JM: Consider the source.
quote:
That really sounds like a way to try and circumvent something you cannot argue.
JM: You'd have more of a point were you not borrowing details from a purely biased website!
quote:
Do we agree on these theorems?
JM: Not as applied to biological systems, no we don't.
quote:
If not, then perhaps, and this is what I've been asking all along, you could point out a case where the definition is untrue.
JM: I ask you to show me why this ID must be true for biological systems. After all, this is what AIG is trying to argue. So, tell me, why MUST they all hold for biological systems?
quote:
That is, point out a case where we cannot trace information back to its mental source. If you are saying we cannot trace the information in DNA back to a mental source than I would ask you where it came from that it could be so original.
JM: ROTFL! No, you are making the bald (and bold) assertion that their is some higher intelligence behind biological systems. Show me the evidence. Here's the rub, you present a series of 8 'theorems' and argue that they apply to biological systems, but other than the theorems you've demonstrated nothing! Until you can show that an intelligence (or mental source as you call it) is behind biological systems you are simpling assuming the fact that you seek to prove!
quote:
DNA is not information and I don't think the question is whether self replicating molecules could form without an intelligent source. This is obviously possible. The question is, how is DNA's code not information in the sense provided by the definition?
JM: NO!
quote:
Does it have a code? Yes. Does the code have a convention? Yes. Does it fufill the five heirarchical levels. Well, it explains in code specific protiens in specific orders that must be produced. The code has meaning and the intention to communicate some kind of instruction to the ribosomes in order for their to be protien production. That covers statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Well the others we must assume- but the assumption does not seem to wild- that it originated from a mental source.
JM: As I said, you assume the very thing you are trying to prove. Thanks for agreeing! In essence you are using the long tried, but totally unsuccessful tactic of 'argument by personal incredulity. In short, you cannot believe that the coding could have arisen without an intelligent designer. You therefore further argue that because you can't believe otherwise, you have proven your point. Again, I say, show me that intelligent design is the ONLY way for these systems to form. You've already admitted that your conclusion is also your assumption.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Gerhard, posted 05-13-2002 10:54 PM Gerhard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Gerhard, posted 05-14-2002 3:50 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 18 of 47 (9631)
05-14-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Gerhard
05-13-2002 10:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

I have not just simply said that biological information is the result of an intelligent source. I have said that based on what we know about information it does not seem incorrect to assume the information in DNA originates from a mental source like all other information. All you have done is told me you don't ascribe a special case of information ( that within DNA) to a mental source, obviously because of a personal belief. You have given no viable reasons for why it cannot be assumed information in DNA does not have the same nature as every other kind of information we see. You have grudgingly accepted it to be information, hence, the quotes around information, for the sake of not having to go along with the task of either agreeing with, or really refuting the definition.
-Gerhard

Please explain how there is information inherent within DNA.
Is there information in an ethanol molecule?
The starting point of this discussion must be whether or not
DNA can be considered to be conveying information.
It IS possible to infer information where none exists in reality ...
unless you DO believe in reading tea-leaves and astrology of
course in which case ... er ... well ... I'll try to think of
something more mundane.
If I type a random sequence of letters (like the infinite
monkeys) it is possible (though highly improbable) that I
could generate, by pure chance, a recognisable sentence in one
language or another.
The end result, though no intelligence went into the creation,
is indistinguishable from a designed sentence.
Perhaps this is how Brad creates his posts
(Sorry Brad
only joking).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Gerhard, posted 05-13-2002 10:54 PM Gerhard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Gerhard, posted 05-14-2002 1:23 PM Peter has replied

  
Gerhard
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 47 (9642)
05-14-2002 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peter
05-14-2002 11:21 AM


Lets start all over from the beginning. Information can be conveyed through many forms. We have binary language, morse code, and even the dances some bees do to show where the source of pollen is, are all good examples. For us to say DNA is the medium for a genetic code, indeed, for us to aspire towards mapping the human genome implies that the arrangement of nucleotides in DNA are telling us something. Maybe you disagree that DNA is the medium for the code that expresses the correct arrangement of amino acids and protiens?
The nucleotides are arranged to code specific instructions for the production of protiens. If the replication of DNA malfunctions and some of the nucleotides are replicated in the wrong order then the correct protien will not be produced. This implies that the code must be expressed correctly or follow certain rules of convention, otherwise the arrangements of nucleotides will not communicate anything. Specifically, the nucleotides arrangement codes for one of the 20 different amino acids. And from there, it provides the instructions for how to arrange all the types of proteins into the correct order. Without this information there would be no way to correctly produce the sequences of amino acids and then protiens that are needed for life. It is not the DNA structure itself that codes for information. We could get a DNA molecule to form but information is not inherent within the molecule. The genetic code is inherent to its own set of conventions and grammatic rules.
It is very true that you could get sentences like "the infinite monkeys" randomly, but that does not address the question of how that sentence came to mean anything. For the infinite monkeys to mean a countless number of monkeys we would have to first formulate the code and then the correct sequence of coded chains (words in the alphabet) and then agree that this sequence of our alphabetic code: T-H-E I-N-F-I-N-I-T-E M-O-N-K-E-Y-S means anything. That is why you cannot just make up new words all the time. We decide through convention that it does indeed mean "the infinite monkeys." This is where the gap between the example of random letter selection forms comprehensible sentences and actual information occurs. They only form comprehensible sentences because we arbitrarily, and therefore by a function of our will, decided that the alphabet would represent certain sounds we use to say certain words- all which are used for the express purpose of conveying information to our minds. And also, the reason any of the sounds mean something is arbitrary as well. That is why we cannot say the English language means something but the French language doesn't. The French merely developed different sounds and combinations of sounds to express the same things.
If we say that certain sequences of nucleotides convey the instructions for producing certain protiens we must decide how we came to understand that to be the case. It is obvious that we did not make up genetic code because it has been instructing the production of protiens since before we even knew about it. If I discovered binary code a hundred years from now people would first off think I was crazy if I assumed the code, the rules behind the code (semantics), and the codes purpose and ability to produce a result (pragmatics and apobetics) were created by random processes in nature. Most people would agree that someone came up with the code and assigned it a purpose and meaning merely by convention. Hence, we say that information can be traced back to a mental source. It would also be stupid to claim that I created the code. Someone else assigned the meaning and guidelines to the code and I simply discovered that it was there. This also seems to be the case with genetic information. The nucleotides code for certain letters we assign to them and the letters must be arranged in certain ways (syntax), they can only be arranged in certain correct orders to be effective and convey an actual meaning (semantics), and the purpose the code communicates is the correct way to produce a protien or a series of protiens (pragmatics and apobetics). It wasn't our choice to conclude that that is what genetic code was saying. We were forced to conclude that based on the scientific evidence. That evidence being that only the various arrangements of nucleotides will lend the production of specific protiens. If the meaning behind the code wasn't our choice then whose was it?
Again no one has ever shown me that a code that conveys a meaning (information) can originate without a mental source. It cannot because information is not a property of matter. It is immaterial and the product of a free and deliberate convention put together by a willful mental source.
-Gerhard
[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 05-14-2002 11:21 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NeilUnreal, posted 05-14-2002 1:53 PM Gerhard has replied
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 05-15-2002 7:56 AM Gerhard has replied

  
NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 47 (9643)
05-14-2002 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Gerhard
05-14-2002 1:23 PM


(Hi, I'm jumping into this thread rather late, without having read it in detail, so fogive me if this seems redundant or OT.)
Imagine a factory populated entirely by robots, which is complex enough to produce and assemble an exact duplicate of itself -- including sources of extracting solar energy -- using only basic raw materials.*
Now imagine the blueprints for that factory.
In the absence of the factory, do the blueprints contain information? In the absence of the blueprints, does an instance of the factory contain information? What if the blueprints were drawn up, but no factory was ever built. What if the factory was built, but no blueprints had never existed? What if I can mathematically prove the factory can be built, but I neither build it nor produce blueprints, where is the information to build the factory in this case?
-Neil
* i.e. A "von Neumann Factory."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Gerhard, posted 05-14-2002 1:23 PM Gerhard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Gerhard, posted 05-14-2002 2:32 PM NeilUnreal has not replied

  
Gerhard
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 47 (9644)
05-14-2002 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NeilUnreal
05-14-2002 1:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by NeilUnreal:
(Hi, I'm jumping into this thread rather late, without having read it in detail, so fogive me if this seems redundant or OT.)
Imagine a factory populated entirely by robots, which is complex enough to produce and assemble an exact duplicate of itself -- including sources of extracting solar energy -- using only basic raw materials.*
Now imagine the blueprints for that factory.
In the absence of the factory, do the blueprints contain information?

Umm. Yes. Maybe your not familiar with blueprints, but if they did not contain any information they would be absolutely useless. We do not draw garbled nonsense and then describe it in shorthand or otherwise with more nonsense. The information on the blue print is the only reason for it.
quote:

In the absence of the blueprints, does an instance of the factory contain information?

Once again, yes. Because that instance of the factory could be expressed through a blueprint full of information on how that factory is set up works, etc
.
quote:

What if the blueprints were drawn up, but no factory was ever built.

What if it was? Whether or not we build the factory does not make the blueprint informationless. What if I laid out the schematics for my dream house, complete with how to do the stained glass windows and the exact size of the toilet. I'm pretty sure that blueprint could still convey some information.
quote:

What if the factory was built, but no blueprints had never existed?

Then that factory must remember, somehow, the way it built itself in order to do it all over again. Blueprints are just a really convienient way of writing all that information down.
quote:

What if I can mathematically prove the factory can be built, but I neither build it nor produce blueprints, where is the information to build the factory in this case?

In the mathematics my friend. Shorthand and numerals all convey information to us-- otherwise whats with the annoying signs (i.e. division symbol) we use to express what we are doing and how we did it?
I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate here. Are you saying DNA is not the medium for genetic information. Maybe you could actually show us how DNA is not the medium for genetic information. Cool factory, though.
-Gerhard
[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NeilUnreal, posted 05-14-2002 1:53 PM NeilUnreal has not replied

  
Gerhard
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 47 (9645)
05-14-2002 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Joe Meert
05-13-2002 11:23 PM


Joe:
Here is a possibly better site for you. I don't know anything about yfiles affiliations or beliefs, but it covers all kinds of topics so I don't think it is pushing any particular political agenda. This paper was just on there, so check it out if you would like. If you still do not like the source try reading some books of your choice (i'm not suggesting any for obvious reasons) on information sciences- you may find them enlightening.
http://www.yfiles.com/origin2.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Joe Meert, posted 05-13-2002 11:23 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Joe Meert, posted 05-14-2002 4:38 PM Gerhard has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 23 of 47 (9648)
05-14-2002 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Gerhard
05-14-2002 3:50 PM


At the risk of sounding whimsical, I don't see any need to delve into the argument any further. The fact is that you have made a scientifically unsupportable conclusion regarding biological systems and their need for an intelligent designer by assuming the very thing you aim to 'prove'. Until you can argue in less than a circle, no good case has been made.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Gerhard, posted 05-14-2002 3:50 PM Gerhard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Gerhard, posted 05-14-2002 4:59 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Gerhard
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 47 (9649)
05-14-2002 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Joe Meert
05-14-2002 4:38 PM


That's up to you. This is a case of me not presenting the argument clearly enough so I guess in your opinion the issue is solved. If only I could better explain to you I am not talking about biological systems but rather informational ones-- well whatever. The choice was up to you to read the actual evidence-- it really did not need a reply.
Thanks for keeping me updated on your decisions though
-Gerhard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Joe Meert, posted 05-14-2002 4:38 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Joe Meert, posted 05-14-2002 6:27 PM Gerhard has not replied
 Message 26 by NeilUnreal, posted 05-14-2002 6:48 PM Gerhard has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 25 of 47 (9650)
05-14-2002 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Gerhard
05-14-2002 4:59 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gerhard:
[B]That's up to you. This is a case of me not presenting the argument clearly enough so I guess in your opinion the issue is solved. If only I could better explain to you I am not talking about biological systems but rather informational ones-- well whatever. The choice was up to you to read the actual evidence-- it really did not need a reply.
Thanks for keeping me updated on your decisions though [/QUOTE]
JM: Then why did you bring it to this board? This board is about creation and evolution. I guess I don't see your point if it was not in regard to information with regard to biological systems. It sure seemed that was your aim. If not, I apologize but then it does not really apply to this board.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Gerhard, posted 05-14-2002 4:59 PM Gerhard has not replied

  
NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 47 (9651)
05-14-2002 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Gerhard
05-14-2002 4:59 PM


quote:
Gerhard:
I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate here.
...
Whether or not we build the factory does not make the blueprint informationless.
Why doesn't it?
Sorry to intrude on the thread, it stirred a long-nascent thought about the error of treating a DNA sequence as if it weren't a somatic part of the cell. It's an itch that started a long time ago when a philosphy professor of mine pointed out that talking about DNA as a code is a kind of polite fiction. Not that the DNA doesn't carry the genetic code, but that the very term "genetic code" places a priori constraints on further dialog and thinking about somatic reproduction*. I can't quite express the thought yet, but it keeps making me think of two concepts: automata and von Neumann factories, and that either everything is a code or nothing is.
I'll keep thinking; more later...
-Neil
*i.e. "Somatic" reproduction in the philosphical sense of "actual, physical," not "somatic reproduction" in the biological sense of non-germ cells. Just couldn't resist the pun!
[This message has been edited by NeilUnreal, 05-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Gerhard, posted 05-14-2002 4:59 PM Gerhard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Gerhard, posted 05-14-2002 9:26 PM NeilUnreal has not replied

  
Gerhard
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 47 (9653)
05-14-2002 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NeilUnreal
05-14-2002 6:48 PM


quote:

Why doesn't it?

It is illogical to say that because a factory is not built its blueprints cannot contain information on how to build them. Long before a factory, or anything as complex as the von Neumann factory, is built we could construct it on paper in the form of a blueprint. If a person decided to build this factory millions of years later he would have the information rich blueprint to go by. Still not quite sure what this implies...
quote:

Sorry to intrude on the thread, it stirred a long-nascent thought about the error of treating a DNA sequence as if it weren't a somatic part of the cell.

I completely agree with you. It would also be incorrect to treat the sequence iron atoms are arranged in on a magnetic disk as if the sequential arrangement were not part of the disk. What is incorrect is to say the conventions assigned to the particular orders of DNA sequences or iron atom sequences that give them meaning are a part of the cell or the disk. This is what makes the code immaterial. Because it is only understandable if we are first aware of the conventions and implicit meaning behind a sequence, the actual sequence could be absolutely anything you want it to be. It could be the part of any type of matter. For example, brail code is expressed in the number and arrangement of raised dots on a piece of plastic or paper. The sequence of dots is part of the paper or plastic, but the meaning behind the sequence is not.
quote:

It's an itch that started a long time ago when a philosphy professor of mine pointed out that talking about DNA as a code is a kind of polite fiction.

Your professor is exactly right. Information scientists have been saying this all along! DNA is the medium for a code, just as ink letters are a medium for the code of the English alphabet. They are simply used to store and transmit the shapes that apply to sounds which we understand to mean something because of a convention made up by a mental source!
quote:

Not that the DNA doesn't carry the genetic code, but that the very term "genetic code" places a priori constraints on further dialog and thinking about somatic reproduction*.

Glad someone has finally admitted DNA carrys a code. I had honestly thought that was going to be the only thing anyone would agree on.
What is meant by the term "somatic reproduction" in a philosophical sense? I have never seen it applied to philosphy but I am interested to know.
-Gerhard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NeilUnreal, posted 05-14-2002 6:48 PM NeilUnreal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Joe Meert, posted 05-15-2002 12:02 AM Gerhard has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 28 of 47 (9654)
05-15-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Gerhard
05-14-2002 9:26 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gerhard:
[B] Your professor is exactly right. Information scientists have been saying this all along! DNA is the medium for a code, just as ink letters are a medium for the code of the English alphabet. They are simply used to store and transmit the shapes that apply to sounds which we understand to mean something because of a convention made up by a mental source! [/QUOTE]
JM: Again I ask you, what relevance is this to creation evolution unless you are going to assert (sans evidence) that the code carried by DNA arises from an intelligent source. The smoke and mirrors game only plays so far. So tell us why are we discussing codes and information on this website?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Gerhard, posted 05-14-2002 9:26 PM Gerhard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Peter, posted 05-15-2002 7:17 AM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 34 by Gerhard, posted 05-19-2002 5:38 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 29 of 47 (9669)
05-15-2002 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Joe Meert
05-15-2002 12:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Again I ask you, what relevance is this to creation evolution unless you are going to assert (sans evidence) that the code carried by DNA arises from an intelligent source. The smoke and mirrors game only plays so far. So tell us why are we discussing codes and information on this website?
Cheers
Joe Meert

I believe that information and codes are important to the
discussion on ID.
IF the DNA sequences in cells ARE a code that suggests that the
code had a source ... or had to be designed. (I think that's
basically what Gerhard has been putting forward).
So the question of whether or not DNA sequences actually
'contain' information is fundamental to ID.
To discuss that we need to consider the nature information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Joe Meert, posted 05-15-2002 12:02 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 30 of 47 (9672)
05-15-2002 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Gerhard
05-14-2002 1:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

Lets start all over from the beginning. Information can be conveyed through many forms. We have binary language, morse code, and even the dances some bees do to show where the source of pollen is, are all good examples.

I agree ... these are all methods of conveying information. BUT the information is NOT contained in the data ... it emerges from
an interpretive act on the part of the recipient of that data.
The same DATA can convey different information to different
individuals at different times.
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

For us to say DNA is the medium for a genetic code, indeed, for us to aspire towards mapping the human genome implies that the arrangement of nucleotides in DNA are telling us something. Maybe you disagree that DNA is the medium for the code that expresses the correct arrangement of amino acids and protiens?

First, stating that DNA DOES contain a code is a conclusion, not
a starting point for discussion.
Second, I DO disagree that DNA is a medium for a CODE.
Protein production from DNA is a purely chemical process, it
requires NO interpretative act.
Cells which can produce proteins which benefit them in some
way survive, those which produce proteins that do not
benefit them do not. Only those that survive reproduce.
That WE VIEW DNA sequences as a code, does not make it a code.
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

The nucleotides are arranged to code specific instructions for the production of protiens. If the replication of DNA malfunctions and some of the nucleotides are replicated in the wrong order then the correct protien will not be produced. This implies that the code must be expressed correctly or follow certain rules of convention, otherwise the arrangements of nucleotides will not communicate anything. Specifically, the nucleotides arrangement codes for one of the 20 different amino acids. And from there, it provides the instructions for how to arrange all the types of proteins into the correct order. Without this information there would be no way to correctly produce the sequences of amino acids and then protiens that are needed for life. It is not the DNA structure itself that codes for information. We could get a DNA molecule to form but information is not inherent within the molecule. The genetic code is inherent to its own set of conventions and grammatic rules.

Again, what you have described above is a purley chemical process.
There is NO information inovled, because there is no
interpretive act.
If the correct protein is produced, the cell survives. If not
the cell dies.
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

It is very true that you could get sentences like "the infinite monkeys" randomly, but that does not address the question of how that sentence came to mean anything. For the infinite monkeys to mean a countless number of monkeys we would have to first formulate the code and then the correct sequence of coded chains (words in the alphabet) and then agree that this sequence of our alphabetic code: T-H-E I-N-F-I-N-I-T-E M-O-N-K-E-Y-S means anything. That is why you cannot just make up new words all the time. We decide through convention that it does indeed mean "the infinite monkeys." This is where the gap between the example of random letter selection forms comprehensible sentences and actual information occurs. They only form comprehensible sentences because we arbitrarily, and therefore by a function of our will, decided that the alphabet would represent certain sounds we use to say certain words- all which are used for the express purpose of conveying information to our minds.

Precisely. And we only view DNA sequence as a code becuase we
arbitrarily decide to.
The confusion has arisen because of the popularisation of the
term 'Genetic Code'.
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

And also, the reason any of the sounds mean something is arbitrary as well. That is why we cannot say the English language means something but the French language doesn't. The French merely developed different sounds and combinations of sounds to express the same things.

BUT languages weren't designed ... they emerged naturally over time
in different regions of the earth.
In the 1700's in England there wasn't even a consisent set of spellings for words. Read documents from the period and
you will find that spelling evolved ... language evolves and
changes as society evolves and changes.
Words emerge in use, and once accepted by enough people enter
the language. Language rules were applied as a method of
standardisation AFTER the languages had emerged.
LANGUAGE IS NOT DESIGNED (except esperanto
)
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

If we say that certain sequences of nucleotides convey the instructions for producing certain protiens we must decide how we came to understand that to be the case.

Sequences of nucleotides do NOT convey the instructions for
producing proteins. The production of protiens is purely chemical.
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

It is obvious that we did not make up genetic code because it has been instructing the production of protiens since before we even knew about it.

We did not create genetic data ... by through our description
of this genetic material we have applied the term CODE.
It is NOT actually a code, we merely discuss using that term
for ease of description.
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

If I discovered binary code a hundred years from now people would first off think I was crazy if I assumed the code, the rules behind the code (semantics), and the codes purpose and ability to produce a result (pragmatics and apobetics) were created by random processes in nature. Most people would agree that someone came up with the code and assigned it a purpose and meaning merely by convention. Hence, we say that information can be traced back to a mental source.

There is no UNIQUE binary code.
Each microprocessor manufacturer builds there devices to
perform certain functions, and then decides what op-codes will
be used in the micro-circuitry to effect those functions.
Binary code IS a designed CODE ... we already know that (in the
present) ...
Proteins in cells are not that way.
It is simply a matter of whether or not the cell can make
use of the proteins is makes to enhance its survivability.
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

It would also be stupid to claim that I created the code. Someone else assigned the meaning and guidelines to the code and I simply discovered that it was there. This also seems to be the case with genetic information.

It may SEEM to be that case, but that doesn't mean that it IS
the case.
IT'S JUST CHEMISTRY!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

The nucleotides code for certain letters we assign to them and the letters must be arranged in certain ways (syntax), they can only be arranged in certain correct orders to be effective and convey an actual meaning (semantics), and the purpose the code communicates is the correct way to produce a protien or a series of protiens (pragmatics and apobetics). It wasn't our choice to conclude that that is what genetic code was saying. We were forced to conclude that based on the scientific evidence. That evidence being that only the various arrangements of nucleotides will lend the production of specific protiens. If the meaning behind the code wasn't our choice then whose was it?

First ... there is NO clear syntax. Someone elsewhere has pointed
out that different nucleotide sequences can be used for the SAME
protien.
{added by edit:: I think I meant the same Amino acid, but hey
it still means that there is no syntax }
There are NO semantics, becuase the creation of a protein from
a DNA segment is a chemical/mechanistic process or transcription.
And likewise the DNA does NOT communicate anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Gerhard:

Again no one has ever shown me that a code that conveys a meaning (information) can originate without a mental source. It cannot because information is not a property of matter. It is immaterial and the product of a free and deliberate convention put together by a willful mental source.
-Gerhard
[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-14-2002]

I agree ... but no-one has shown me that the DNA sequences ARE
a code.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 05-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Gerhard, posted 05-14-2002 1:23 PM Gerhard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Gerhard, posted 05-19-2002 6:54 PM Peter has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024