Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID, Information, and Human Perception
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 1 of 49 (91588)
03-10-2004 1:40 PM


In another thread I brought up Alphabet soup. If I were eating alphabet soup, and the letters floated around and spelled out the word, I dunno, "Jesus", that would be a perfect example of an ireducably complex system, and new informataion coming from nothing.
If I remove a leter, the word "Jesus" loses it's meaning. Each letter is important to the structure. Also, the chances of the word forming, are astronimical, but being an alphabet soup fan, I can tell you it happens all the time
Anyway...
What makes life, the universe, and everything so much more different than this alphabet soup? We have smaller things floating about, knocking into each other, makeing bigger things, etc. etc. All that "soup" is bound to spell out some words, so why is it so hard to belive that information, and indeed life, can come from this?
I think the root of the problem lies in the "information" idea. ID'ers seem to find something special in the concept of information, DNA as information, and so on. But what they don't seem to understand is that we identify this information as stuff that is meaningfull to us, as humans!
That is: "a rock contains no information, a pile of sand dosn't, but holly crap that bird does cuz I can relate to a bird!"
But in truth that bird is no different from the rock. Just another asemblage of matter. Just as my alphabet soup with the word "Jesus" would leave a dog unimpresed, as the dog probably has no concept whatsoever of what the little pasta bits are, much less language. Yet, Im sure the dog can find much meaning in poop, and in other dogs' rear ends which we as humans will never fully grasp as meaningfull
I think IDers are mistakeing human assigned "meaning" for reality. If we were not here to intepret it would this "information", or "ireducible complexity", exist at all?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 03-10-2004 3:35 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 5 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-15-2004 11:05 AM Yaro has replied
 Message 17 by 1.61803, posted 03-15-2004 5:18 PM Yaro has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 49 (91608)
03-10-2004 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
03-10-2004 1:40 PM


Using the alphabet soup analogy, this is pretty close to what scientists find in amino acid sequences.
J Theor Biol. 2000 Oct 7;206(3):379-86.
Information content of protein sequences.
Weiss O, Jimenez-Montano MA, Herzel H.
Institute for Theoretical Biology, Humboldt University Berlin, Invalidenstr. 43, Berlin, D-10115, Germany.
The complexity of large sets of non-redundant protein sequences is measured. This is done by estimating the Shannon entropy as well as applying compression algorithms to estimate the algorithmic complexity. The estimators are also applied to randomly generated surrogates of the protein data. Our results show that proteins are fairly close to random sequences. The entropy reduction due to correlations is only about 1%. However, precise estimations of the entropy of the source are not possible due to finite sample effects. Compression algorithms also indicate that the redundancy is in the order of 1%. These results confirm the idea that protein sequences can be regarded as slightly edited random strings. We discuss secondary structure and low-complexity regions as causes of the redundancy observed. The findings are related to numerical and biochemical experiments with random polypeptides. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.
I wonder what mechanism could slightly edit amino acid sequences? Hmmm, could it be . . . random mutation and natural selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 03-10-2004 1:40 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-15-2004 10:32 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Saviourmachine
Member (Idle past 3554 days)
Posts: 113
From: Holland
Joined: 01-16-2004


Message 3 of 49 (92553)
03-15-2004 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Loudmouth
03-10-2004 3:35 PM


Information within science
The complexity of large sets of non-redundant protein sequences is measured. This is done by estimating the Shannon entropy as well as applying compression algorithms to estimate the algorithmic complexity. The estimators are also applied to randomly generated surrogates of the protein data. Our results show that proteins are fairly close to random sequences. The entropy reduction due to correlations is only about 1%. However, precise estimations of the entropy of the source are not possible due to finite sample effects. Compression algorithms also indicate that the redundancy is in the order of 1%. These results confirm the idea that protein sequences can be regarded as slightly edited random strings. We discuss secondary structure and low-complexity regions as causes of the redundancy observed. The findings are related to numerical and biochemical experiments with random polypeptides. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.
So, if information isn't something that really exists. Would you mind to explain me the terms (and why these scientist use them?):
  • complexity
  • non-redundant
  • measured
  • estimating
  • entropy
  • compression
  • randomly
  • surrogates
  • reduction
  • correlations
  • (secundary) structure
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 03-10-2004 3:35 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Yaro, posted 03-15-2004 11:03 AM Saviourmachine has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 4 of 49 (92562)
03-15-2004 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Saviourmachine
03-15-2004 10:32 AM


Re: Information within science
So, if information isn't something that really exists. Would you mind to explain me the terms (and why these scientist use them?):
Im assuming you were responding to me.
I didn't say information dosn't exist, I was saying that ID'ers are confusing information for human assigned "meaning". They are different things all together.
ID'ers missinterpret the natural world by assuming that just because something has meaning to us, it is inherently special, and contains IC information.
But this is not so, humans impose meaning on the world around them. The world around them has no inherent meaning. It just is.
get it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-15-2004 10:32 AM Saviourmachine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-15-2004 11:15 AM Yaro has replied

  
Saviourmachine
Member (Idle past 3554 days)
Posts: 113
From: Holland
Joined: 01-16-2004


Message 5 of 49 (92565)
03-15-2004 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
03-10-2004 1:40 PM


Yaro writes:
In another thread I brought up Alphabet soup. If I were eating alphabet soup, and the letters floated around and spelled out the word, I dunno, "Jesus", that would be a perfect example of an ireducably complex system, and new informataion coming from nothing.
Some remarks about the assumed similarities between alphabet and DNA soup:
  • even if there is one-to-one relationship between DNA and the to be decoded protein, between 'Jesus' and the concept Jesus there isn't
  • there is no direct causal relationship between letters and the word they form, you are using a spoon or something like that? (with your eyes closed, I assume)
  • how do you simulate natural selection? how many words do you form without meaning?
  • it's your knowledge of english that translates Jesus as indicating some person a long time ago (in Dutch for example it's misspelled: Jezus)
  • how do you know it's irreducable complex?
    1. maybe a long time ago Jesu did mean something, and esu, and su ('his' in Spanish) and u ('you' in Dutch)
    2. maybe it had some other function in the past
But in truth that bird is no different from the rock. Just another asemblage of matter.
...
I think IDers are mistakeing human assigned "meaning" for reality. If we were not here to intepret it would this "information", or "ireducible complexity", exist at all?
Blending and particulate systems [Abler, 1989], a lot of water molecules give water properties that differ from any of their constituents.
There are several reasons to suggest that there are different types of realities. This doesn't mean that there have to be non-fysical realities, but that there are 'levels of reality' to discern. Even Churchland differs an auto-connected way of knowing from a hetero-connected way (first person versus third person view). But, he fails to point out why consciousness not can be considered as a separate reality. Seperate realities in the way a particulate system has.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 03-10-2004 1:40 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Yaro, posted 03-15-2004 11:15 AM Saviourmachine has replied

  
Saviourmachine
Member (Idle past 3554 days)
Posts: 113
From: Holland
Joined: 01-16-2004


Message 6 of 49 (92568)
03-15-2004 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Yaro
03-15-2004 11:03 AM


Re: Information within science
I think the root of the problem lies in the "information" idea. ID'ers seem to find something special in the concept of information, DNA as information, and so on. But what they don't seem to understand is that we identify this information as stuff that is meaningfull to us, as humans!
So, information is identified by the meaningfullness to us.
I was saying that ID'ers are confusing information for human assigned "meaning". They are different things all together.
So, information and meaning are totally different concepts.
Can you explain me this? Maybe a definition of 'information' and of 'meaning' would help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Yaro, posted 03-15-2004 11:03 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Yaro, posted 03-15-2004 11:28 AM Saviourmachine has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 7 of 49 (92569)
03-15-2004 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Saviourmachine
03-15-2004 11:05 AM


Some remarks about the assumed similarities between alphabet and DNA soup:
* even if there is one-to-one relationship between DNA and the to be decoded protein, between 'Jesus' and the concept Jesus there isn't
Yes there is, the alphabet soup word relates to a human imposed concept, as does the DNA "word".
Say this particular DNA makes a dog. Nature dosn't care if we call the thing a dog, nature is just doing what it does. We impose the concept of 'dog' on what is otherwise the meaningless, arbitrary, bi-product of a DNA "word"
* there is no direct causal relationship between letters and the word they form, you are using a spoon or something like that? (with your eyes closed, I assume)
I don't think I understand this point. Im just watching the floating letters, float around bumping into each other.
* how do you simulate natural selection? how many words do you form without meaning?
I think imposing Natural Selection streatches the metaphore a bit too far . But I guess you could say, natural selection is pasta which is able to float. Because not all of them can.
Again, the meaning is irrelivant. It makes no difference if the word is "whakhj" or "jesus". The meaning if imposed by humans.
* it's your knowledge of english that translates Jesus as indicating some person a long time ago (in Dutch for example it's misspelled: Jezus)
Irelivant. In this metaphore I represent all of humanity, and dutch has no meaning to me.
* how do you know it's irreducable complex?
1. maybe a long time ago Jesu did mean something, and esu, and su ('his' in Spanish) and u ('you' in Dutch)
2. maybe it had some other function in the past
Irelevant, See above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-15-2004 11:05 AM Saviourmachine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-15-2004 11:32 AM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 8 of 49 (92572)
03-15-2004 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Saviourmachine
03-15-2004 11:15 AM


So, information and meaning are totally different concepts.
Can you explain me this? Maybe a definition of 'information' and of 'meaning' would help.
Im sorry, I did mix those up a bit. Let me put it this way:
Information, is stuff like DNA. I suppose in it's simplest definition, some form of stored data.
Meaning, is what we assign things this information produces. Meaning is the human assignment of certain "information" being more special than others.
I remember one ID argument where this fellow showd an egyptian sculpture, of a man. And said we can tell ID was involved, because the statue containd speciffic "information" which we could see in it. It had stored data concerning the likeness of a man.
The man continued to compare the statue to DNA, saying that DNA contains information concerning the likeness of various organisims.
My refutation to this, is that we are picking and choosing what has information and what doesnt. Furthermore, we are mistaken by saying that information cannot arise on it's own.
That statue has no meaning to a dog, or a bird, it only means sumthing to us humans. Everything potentialy has information in it given the right interpreter.
Finaly, meaningfull information, arises on it's own all the time. Ever watch clouds? Remember the famous face on mars? or the man in the moon?
I hope this helps you understand my possition better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-15-2004 11:15 AM Saviourmachine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-15-2004 12:01 PM Yaro has replied

  
Saviourmachine
Member (Idle past 3554 days)
Posts: 113
From: Holland
Joined: 01-16-2004


Message 9 of 49 (92573)
03-15-2004 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Yaro
03-15-2004 11:15 AM


Yes there is, the alphabet soup word relates to a human imposed concept, as does the DNA "word".
Which Jesus are you talking about? If there is a one-to-one relationship I've to have the same person in mind I guess.
Okay, I got it. A DNA 'word' is a human imposed concept, genes are a concept, proteins are a concept.
But I guess you could say, natural selection is pasta which is able to float. Because not all of them can.
Inapproriate comparision, natural selection has to do with the 'concepts' genes and proteins.
Again, the meaning is irrelivant. It makes no difference if the word is "whakhj" or "jesus". The meaning if imposed by humans.
Genes and proteins as meanings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Yaro, posted 03-15-2004 11:15 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Yaro, posted 03-15-2004 12:25 PM Saviourmachine has not replied
 Message 41 by Peter, posted 04-01-2004 5:46 AM Saviourmachine has not replied

  
Saviourmachine
Member (Idle past 3554 days)
Posts: 113
From: Holland
Joined: 01-16-2004


Message 10 of 49 (92577)
03-15-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Yaro
03-15-2004 11:28 AM


Information, is stuff like DNA. I suppose in it's simplest definition, some form of stored data.
...
Everything potentialy has information in it given the right interpreter.
Are you saying that information exists, even without an interpreter?
meaningfull information
You can divide information in meaningfull information and information without meaning. Maybe it's nice to differ 'probability or embarrassment' versus 'accordancy with reality'. The reason why I shouldn't opt for the latter is that it hollows out the concept of information. There is no way to capture 'structure' within such a definition. Do you think there exists something like 'structure'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Yaro, posted 03-15-2004 11:28 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Yaro, posted 03-15-2004 12:20 PM Saviourmachine has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 11 of 49 (92581)
03-15-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Saviourmachine
03-15-2004 12:01 PM


Are you saying that information exists, even without an interpreter?
Good question!
I would have to say, no. Information necessitates an interpreter, or else it is not information.
You can divide information in meaningfull information and information without meaning. Maybe it's nice to differ 'probability or embarrassment' versus 'accordancy with reality'.
Im not sure I understand your first option. Could you explain?
The reason why I shouldn't opt for the latter is that it hollows out the concept of information. There is no way to capture 'structure' within such a definition. Do you think there exists something like 'structure'?
As far as structure, yes. Structure exists. I think we can even take that further and saythat structure is the product of interpreted information

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-15-2004 12:01 PM Saviourmachine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-15-2004 1:30 PM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 12 of 49 (92582)
03-15-2004 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Saviourmachine
03-15-2004 11:32 AM


Inapproriate comparision, natural selection has to do with the 'concepts' genes and proteins.
Like I said, I think we stretch the metaphore to far with Natural selection
Perhapse, I am that natural selection. Choosing words that only mean something to me.
Genes and proteins as meanings?
Not quite, more like our perception of the significance of those genes and proteins is meaning. Remember, nature is just coding DNA, the result of the DNA is no diffrent from crystals forming, or the action of fire, it's just interacting chemicals. Our view that this coding is a special process, is the meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-15-2004 11:32 AM Saviourmachine has not replied

  
Saviourmachine
Member (Idle past 3554 days)
Posts: 113
From: Holland
Joined: 01-16-2004


Message 13 of 49 (92593)
03-15-2004 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Yaro
03-15-2004 12:20 PM


Structure a product of interpreted information
Yaro writes:
Information necessitates an interpreter, or else it is not information.
So, information as ordinary data arrays, but called information in the appearance of an interpreter.
Saviourmachine writes:
You can divide information in meaningfull information and information without meaning. Maybe it's nice to differ 'probability or embarrassment' versus 'accordancy with reality'.
The first option takes a particular point of view into account, it assumes a possibility to embarras the spectator. In compression techniques information is defined according prediction chance. A picture with random black and white spots contains the greatest amount of information.
Yaro writes:
Perhapse, I am that natural selection. Choosing words that only mean something to me.
That's a better suggestion.


If the aim with your analogy was to stress the difference between 'meaning' and 'information' like you defined them, then I want to suggest to leave it by this.
If the aim with you analogy was to stress the similarity between 'information' in alphabet and DNA soup, then you've to explain why the structure involved is a product of interpreted information in both cases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Yaro, posted 03-15-2004 12:20 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 03-15-2004 2:50 PM Saviourmachine has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 14 of 49 (92601)
03-15-2004 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Saviourmachine
03-15-2004 1:30 PM


If the aim with you analogy was to stress the similarity between 'information' in alphabet and DNA soup, then you've to explain why the structure involved is a product of interpreted information in both cases.
I think we showld look further back than DNA soup even, lets go as far back as the elemnts. As all matter is an arangement of them.
Well, alphabet soup, ocasionaly produces words we understand. However, this word production does not mean all the other things aren't words also. After all, it is humans which give more meaning to a letter arangement such as "Jesus" as uposed to "ahskdhuw".
Likewise, the interaction of the elemnts, producing Dogs or Rocks, are subject to our interpretation as to their uniqueness. We view Dogs as somehow more miraculous than rocks, when in truth they are no diffrent. Just results of the material soup we all live in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-15-2004 1:30 PM Saviourmachine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by TechnoCore, posted 03-15-2004 3:38 PM Yaro has replied
 Message 29 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-17-2004 3:31 PM Yaro has replied

  
TechnoCore
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 49 (92604)
03-15-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Yaro
03-15-2004 2:50 PM


I agree with you, but maybe information is not the word to use. I would use the word 'data'. Information requires context.
What is the relationship between data-information-knowledge?
Maybe knowledge is needed in order to interpret data into information? The precise arrangement of letters in the soup is data. The arrangement of dna-sequences is also only data.
It only becomes information when this raw data is interpreted in some way.
For example DNA is not information to me. GAGAG tells me nothing. It is information for the cell though. Or take the gigabytes of data streamed back by the mars-rovers. It is usless data until that moment a scientist has had a look at it
Also the interpreter that converts data into information does obvioulsy not need to have any form of intelligence.
I can write a program that converts some kind of bulk data, into another form, red by another program that needs this as information to as how it should operate.
But whats even funnier i can also write a program that through natural selection rewrites itself and finally does the exakt same thing as my first hand-crafted one.
So when someone says that information cannot arise of its own, but a intelligent creator is needed, they are plain wrong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 03-15-2004 2:50 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Yaro, posted 03-15-2004 4:34 PM TechnoCore has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024