Introduction to Information

I find it highly unlikely that you believe that anybody as ignorant as you believe me to be could be able to magically manipulate your arguments into saying the opposite of what they're saying. If you don't like the ridiculous extremes that your arguments logically point to, then how is it my fault when I point them out?

quote:

---

The field of study the topic under discussion belongs to dictates the appropriate meanings of terms.

---

quote:

---

Yet, they must look to thesmelves for blame if their re-definitions give rise to misunderstanding.

---

Nope. Those silly enough to reject the definitions and scientific statements from the appropriate field, and instead rely upon those definitions that don't apply to the topic under discussion, are to blame.

quote:

---

Now, can you show me that PETER'S definition, apparently drawn from information technology, predates Shannon's from the 1940's?

---

quote:

---

What do you believe that the original definition of information, prior to the 40's, is? Do you believe that it's closer to Shannon's definition or yours?

---

LOL! What do you mean by Shannon's OR mine? You're still completely in the dark, aren't you.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-22-2003]

quote:

---

How could I make a strawman out of an argument that is itself without merit or content?

---

You present an argument without an argument? A new "logical fallacy" employed by CrashFrog.

quote:

---

It's not until you are done disingenuously manipulating them that they do, but by that time, you're already guilty.

---

quote:

---

I find it highly unlikely that you believe that anybody as ignorant as you believe me to be could be able to magically manipulate your arguments into saying the opposite of what they're saying.

---

Oh, you've shown us your ignorance as far as biology and information theory are concerned, but you're crafty and disingenuous for sure.

quote:

---

If you don't like the ridiculous extremes that your arguments logically point to, then how is it my fault when I point them out?

---

Because you create strawmen. That means you DON'T attack my original argument, but instead attack your distorted substitute. Here's an example:
http://EvC Forum: Introduction to Information -->EvC Forum: Introduction to InformationIf I were to be as dishonest as you are being, I could pretend to refute anyone on anything. But the "victory" would be completely empty, just as your self-imagined "victory" against me is.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-22-2003]

You have been (check your posts) conflating two very
different defintions of information in your analyses.As soon as you mention information in DNA as being responsible
for the construction (algorithmically) of an organism
you have stepped over into the 'semantic' connotation of
information.Shannon information, as I am sure you are aware, is only a
reference to the complexity of a sequence of characters to
be transmitted and is aimed at optimising data transmissions.I suggested, several times, that under the 'reduction of
uncertainty' definition DNA still does not contain information,
since no sequence of DNA allows one to predict the next 'character'.

Just out of curiosity ... did you guess the cypher key
or solve it some other way?

Peter,Didn't have any problem with that one. Your usual misspelling gives me much more trouble.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

... of you asserting that I've raised a strawman.Look, you brought up that biologists and chemists had re-defined "information" in this context. I merely pointed out how ridiculous it is to re-define words - in any context - without appropriate justification. You seem to believe that biologists and chemists are above justification for their word use. I do not.You may see that as a strawman. I see it as your exact original argument taken to its ridiculous extreme. If it's a strawman, then it's because your original argument contains nothing but straw.So, again - if the definition of the word "information" in this context bears no resemblance to information as it is commonly known, what's the justification for its use in this context? Merely the fact that biologists and chemists use that word is insufficient. If they weren't actually talking about information, then they shouldn't use the word.

All,This reminds me of an exchange with Fred Williams, among others.The argument goes like this. DNA contains information. Because information under Gitt's (or whoevers) formulation requires the intent of sending information, then information cannot arise randomly by definition. The information must have a sender, presumably God.Of course, there is nothing to stop the sequences that formulate proteins arising by chance. It is observed. Increases in efficiency, changed functions, even operons have been observed to evolve by nothing more than RM&NS. This brings up the interesting notion that a protein designed by man contains information, & exactly the same protein arrived at by RM&NS contains none. It therefore stands to reason that if we are using a definition of information that requires a sender, we must determine that God designed DNA before we can say it contains information at all before we can assert that God exists. If DNA arose naturally then it contains no information if the definition of information requires a sender, unless we switch to a less precise everyday meaning of information, that is. But then this demonstrates nothing, either.You cannot conflate different meanings of information to assert DNA must have had a designer without committing the logical fallacy of equivocation.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

quote:

---

You cannot conflate different meanings of information to assert DNA must have had a designer without committing the logical fallacy of equivocation.

---

Yes, which is a good reason to stick to topic-appropriate (such as biological) definitions, which, unlike the "computer industry" one(s) used by Peter and Crashfrog, don't require consciousness to intepret "data".Here's another logical disaster that one could end up with when using their definition of information.Premise 1) DNA contains information (as biology, chemistry, and physicics texts, as well as the primary literature, and even lowly dictionaries, all confirm).Premise 2) Information is that which results from consciousness interpretting "data" in a meaningful way using context and history (paraphrasing Peter's definition off the top of my head)Conclusion: Therefore, all cells (or DNA itself!) possess consciousness.There are two main ways out of this obvious contradiction of reality.First, one could reject the clear consensus that DNA contains information and assert that DNA doesn't contain information. But that would be rather drastic and foolish.Second, one could simply reject the specific definition of information being used and replace it with an appropriate one: a biological or information theoretic one that doesn't rely on consciousness. This is clearly the appropriate way to avoid the contradiction.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-23-2003]

quote:

---

I suggested, several times, that under the 'reduction of
uncertainty' definition DNA still does not contain information,
since no sequence of DNA allows one to predict the next 'character'.

---

Try reading this:http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/...ider1986/latex2001/node4.htmlIf you still don't get it, I suggest you contact the author, T. Schneider, since it is he with whom you really disagree.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-23-2003]

quote:

---

Look, you brought up that biologists and chemists had re-defined "information" in this context.

---

No, I didn’t. I brought up the fact that Claude Shannon, who was neither a biologist nor a chemist, gave a scientific/mathematical definition to the term information. It also happens to be quite logical.

quote:

---

I merely pointed out

---

There’s no merely pointing out about the following:**************************************************************
Crashfrog: I mean, if I re-defined "kittens" to mean exactly what geneticists mean by "information", then I could very well say "DNA has kittens" and defend it by saying exactly what you say:*****************************************
it is MY definition that is appropriate here: Peter's is not.
*****************************************DNAunion: Fact remains that in my original, I didn’t mention anything completely stupid as you did (kittens = information): I used only definitions that biologists, chemists, and physicists DO accept. My definitions were perfectly legitimate and my logic stood up.You materially distorted my original and offered your ridiculous substitute as a means of pretending to have "knocked down" my statements...strawman.
**************************************************************All you "merely" did was construct a strawman.

quote:

---

how ridiculous it is to re-define words - in any context - without appropriate justification.

---

Hey Crashfrog, how do you measure your type of information quantitatively? There sure wasn’t anything in the definition Peter gave, and that you have since basically put forth, that allows one to do that. Hmmmwouldn’t be nice if someone, like Claude Shannon, gave the term information a quantifiable basis/definition?

quote:

---

You may see that as a strawman. I see it as your exact original argument taken to its ridiculous extreme.

---

You see it wrong thenyou did fabricate a strawman. See above.

quote:

---

If it's a strawman, then it's because your original argument contains nothing but straw.

---

Nope. My original statements used appropriate and accepted-by-scientists definitions and my logic stood up. It was only AFTER you got your grubby little hands on my statements and mangled them to the point of being unrecognizableand ridiculousthat "my" argument fell.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-23-2003]

quote:

---

You seem to believe that biologists and chemists are above justification for their word use.

---

No, I believe the scientists involved use the appropriate scientific definitions, as they obviously should.People who foolishly reject the appropriate definitions and instead rely upon ones that create contradictions where none existed previously are the ones who have no justification for their actions.

Here's another to add to the list...it's a paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA that shows Shannon’s view of information being applied to the base sequences of certain regions of DNA.Just a moment... archid=1072233708112_253&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-23-2003]