How is it that we view IC and ID?

(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."

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]

Peter has made the point I was trying to make much clearer than I did. "Code" is used in two senses: as a technical term about objective processes and as a colloquial term with subjective implications.In the technical sense, "code" is not a category to which a thing either belongs or doesn't belong; it's a body of theory for mathematically talking about information storage and transfer. DNA is clearly analyzable as a code in this sense. In the second sense, "code" makes implications about intelligence, sentience, etc., which are also influenced by the speaker’s metaphysical (etc.) beliefs. Whether DNA is a code in this sense, and what that implies, will be different from speaker to speaker.Many ID proponents make no attempt to distinguish between these two uses of the definition "code." They end up mixing apples and oranges by assuming statements about "code" within the technical definition of "code" are transferable to the their particular subjective definition. So all they’ve really done is change the wording of the question for which they’re begging.It may be that the technical definition of a code and their subjective definition are equivalent. But the burden of proof is on them and in my opinion they haven’t done very much to prove this.This is why I have both strong scientific and theological reservations about ID. As a believer, I feel it forces me into the position of "heretic" if I fail to accept their particular linkage of science and religion (the "Galileo" thing). I have no qualms about the attempt — go for it! I just think they’re claiming victory too early and that any definitive answer (either yea or nay) lies more in the realm of advanced science and mathematics than rhetoric.-Neilp.s.

quote:

---

What is meant by the term "somatic reproduction" in a philosophical sense?

---

Philosophically, "somatic" denotes physically real vs. abstract, mental, theoretical, etc. I don’t think the term "somatic reproduction" exists in this context, but I was using it to mean what DNA is and does in the real world — actual molecules binding and parting under the influences of physics and thermodynamics — as opposed to abstract notions like code and gene. Kind of an internal allegory of the argument going on here.

​

[This message has been edited by NeilUnreal, 05-15-2002]

"INFORMATIONAL CODES ARE INDEPENDENT OF MATTER AND ENERGY"This is an unproven assumption. It is possible that matter, energy, and information are different words for a single underlying concept.-Neil

​

[This message has been edited by NeilUnreal, 05-19-2002]