Ask God for Me

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know what you mean by material carrier. The person doing the observing has the information. It is something the observer derives from his/her observations.

If I understand you correctly, you feel that information is not a reality but something we bring about by observing DNA for instance?

 

[Tinker Grey]

If I understand you correctly, you feel that information is not a reality but something we bring about by observing DNA for instance?

Bring about? Well, if you mean that after observation we have some brain state where subjectively we say we have information, sure.

If you mean that observing something then inferring something causes information in the thing observed, no. Information is only in the brain of the observer.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Had I someone to bet with, I would be wealthy right now. I knew you were going to say this.

Good for you.

1. It is a language or code just as the words have meaning.

Languages and codes have an intelligent being behind them that can be demonstrated. That is why we know they were intelligently created. There has been no demonstration of an intelligent being behind DNA. If you can do that I will believe you.

2. You have no evidence anymore for aliens than God but you claim it would be a more "reasonable answer".

It is because no supernatural events need to occur for DNA to be designed by aliens. Show me that supernatural events can occur then they both would be the same probability maybe.

3. Biological information is the evidence for intelligence. Now you can claim like you did that it could come from Aliens; however, you know as well as I do that you understand that chance had nothing to do with it. Chance is all materialism has to offer for evidence of intelligence for biological information. Chance doesn't cut it. Natural selection has to have something to select from and a way to replicate that which is selected which needs already established systems to do so.

I never said chance had nothing to do with it. Remember my position is I don't know.

4. You have just confirmed that you chose to believe what you want to believe and all the evidence to the contrary will be thrown out due to it being 'supernatural'.

Not at all. Again, show me that a supernatural explanation is possible.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Bring about? Well, if you mean that after observation we have some brain state where subjectively we say we have information, sure.

If you mean that observing something then inferring something causes information in the thing observed, no. Information is only in the brain of the observer.

Do you think DNA fits the definition of information?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Do you think DNA fits the definition of information?

The way I'm using the term, no. I'm attempting to be highly philosphical and precise. When we say information, what do we mean precisely?

Now, there may be problems with my formulation; this is the first time I've attempted articulating it. Colloquially, we may say there is information in a blood splatter, but it is really in the investigator's head. It is what the investigator infers from what he sees. Two investigators may infer two different scenarios from what is seen. Although it is colloquial (less precise than we might hope), I'd say the information is the inference, not the source of the inference.

We pattern seeking humans infer X from Y all the time. GATTACA doesn't "say" blue eyes. It's just a sequence of molecules. But an observer might infer "blue eyes", but he/she does so based on context (location, etc.) and other things. GATTACA in some other location might not mean "blue eyes"; it might mean knock-kneed. Again GATTACA doesn't contain "knock-kneed".

If we retain the idea that information is in the object of our investigation, you run into weird considerations like how does the information content in GATTACA compare with the information content of a blood spatter. If information is in our heads, there may be some tough questions, but at least the questions have same context--the brain. The questions might be about encoding/storage and processing.

Information is like meaning. It is not intrinsic; it is assigned or inferred. Information isn't objectively there; it is subjectively there. (Or so I claim. YMMV.)

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you think DNA fits the definition of information?

DNA is not the information. The information is within the DNA. Think of the DNA as the book and the letters for the words, the sequence or position as the meaning and the begin and end as the sentence. The Gene is the package of information.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Good for you.

It would have been had I set up a bet.

Languages and codes have an intelligent being behind them that can be demonstrated. That is why we know they were intelligently created.

Exactly, it can be demonstrated that the information in DNA is a language/code and we know only intelligence can create languages and codes.

There has been no demonstration of an intelligent being behind DNA. If you can do that I will believe you.

I don't want you to believe me, think for yourself. Study it. Learn about it. Only bias will stop you.

It is because no supernatural events need to occur for DNA to be designed by aliens.

Really? That is a bold claim. Who designed the aliens? What was the first step in their existence?

Show me that supernatural events can occur then they both would be the same probability maybe.

Intelligence is the drive behind events we are talking about. While they don't come with a signature of who the author is, it still points to an author and not just chance or natural selection.

I never said chance had nothing to do with it. Remember my position is I don't know.

If you want to remain in the materialist viewpoint, you have one avenue and that is chance. If you feel there is any others, I would love to hear them.

Not at all. Again, show me that a supernatural explanation is possible.

I am showing you that not only is it possible, it is probable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The way I'm using the term, no. I'm attempting to be highly philosphical and precise. When we say information, what do we mean precisely?

Now, there may be problems with my formulation; this is the first time I've attempted articulating it. Colloquially, we may say there is information in a blood splatter, but it is really in the investigator's head. It is what the investigator infers from what he sees. Two investigators may infer two different scenarios from what is seen. Although it is colloquial (less precise than we might hope), I'd say the information is the inference, not the source of the inference.

Your analogy is pointing exactly where your formulation takes the hit. Any 'investigator' when looking at DNA can understand the code or language and it will always have the same message. One isn't going to say they see this and another claiming to see something different. That is the beauty of the language. It allows not only understanding of the language but usage of the language to aid in health and heredity.

We pattern seeking humans infer X from Y all the time. GATTACA doesn't "say" blue eyes. It's just a sequence of molecules. But an observer might infer "blue eyes", but he/she does so based on context (location, etc.) and other things. GATTACA in some other location might not mean "blue eyes"; it might mean knock-kneed. Again GATTACA doesn't contain "knock-kneed".

Seeing a pattern is not what the information is about. It is very specific, it has an instruction manual and a purpose and goal. Its not the same as seeing an elephant in the clouds.

If we retain the idea that information is in the object of our investigation, you run into weird considerations like how does the information content in GATTACA compare with the information content of a blood spatter. If information is in our heads, there may be some tough questions, but at least the questions have same context--the brain. The questions might be about encoding/storage and processing.

Blood splatter is only information in the way it might relate to a crime. However, it has no information within its self, which is where you are making your mistake. The information within DNA is not in our heads, it is in the DNA which sends the specific message for a specified purpose.

Information is like meaning. It is not intrinsic; it is assigned or inferred. Information isn't objectively there; it is subjectively there. (Or so I claim. YMMV.)

Language which is most definately within the working DNA is objective and most certainly has meaning. Look at those with Down's Syndrome, this is a mistype in the instructions.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

DNA is not the information. The information is within the DNA. Think of the DNA as the book and the letters for the words, the sequence or position as the meaning and the begin and end as the sentence. The Gene is the package of information.

Ok, I am not disputing that information is in DNA. If you look at definitions of information I think it fits.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Exactly, it can be demonstrated that the information in DNA is a language/code and we know only intelligence can create languages and codes.

How do we know this?

I don't want you to believe me, think for yourself. Study it. Learn about it. Only bias will stop you.

So only bias will keep me from the conclusion that there is an intelligence behind it? No, only the lack of evidence will keep me from believing it has intelligence behind it.

Really? That is a bold claim. Who designed the aliens? What was the first step in their existence?

I do not believe it was aliens only that it is a more reasonable assumption than the supernatural. You seem to have a problem with unknown answers.

Intelligence is the drive behind events we are talking about. While they don't come with a signature of who the author is, it still points to an author and not just chance or natural selection.

You have not demonstrated this.

If you want to remain in the materialist viewpoint, you have one avenue and that is chance. If you feel there is any others, I would love to hear them.

No, I can say I don't know which is the truth. If I had to guess I would say it happened by chance but I cannot support that claim.

I am showing you that not only is it possible, it is probable.

No, a supernatural claim cannot be probable without supporting that the supernatural exists and others have said here.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do we know this?

If you know of another source then by all means come out with it and you will be the recipient of the Nobel.

So only bias will keep me from the conclusion that there is an intelligence behind it? No, only the lack of evidence will keep me from believing it has intelligence behind it.

Language and codes are products of intelligence, which you agreed in your post earlier, except you added that it could be demonstrated as being by intelligence. How is that demonstrated?

I do not believe it was aliens only that it is a more reasonable assumption than the supernatural. You seem to have a problem with unknown answers.

No, my problem is that you continue to say that you are open to God and then you will not allow supernatural explanations. Do you see the problem with your claim? You understand that language and codes are products of intelligence but you will not allow that to be evidence of an intelligent Being.

You have not demonstrated this.

Just how would you accept that demonstration? If one knows that intelligence is the only known mechanism that uses language and codes, and we find it within life itself, what more of a demonstration is needed?

[/Quote]No, I can say I don't know which is the truth. If I had to guess I would say it happened by chance but I cannot support that claim.[/Quote]Well then my friend you would not be included into the majority of biologists who have researched it.

No, a supernatural claim cannot be probable without supporting that the supernatural exists and others have said here.

What supports the supernatural exists? If evidence for intelligence is not acceptable, what is?

 

[Tinker Grey]

DNA is not a language: Is DNA a language? - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Oncedeceived]

DNA is not a language: Is DNA a language? - PubMed - NCBI

Yes it is.
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet
4.3: The Language of DNA

This language is called the genetic code. But before talking about this specific code, it is important to talk about how the code is read. Please note that the below answer is a simplification of the reality.

Mechanism by which the code is read

To make things easier (reality is a little more complicated), DNA is "formatted" into RNA which is then "formatted" into proteins. When "formatting" occurs, we do not lose the previous format but we only copied the information into a new format. The formatting from DNA to RNA is called transcription and the formatting from RNA to proteins is called translation.

https://phys.org/news/2014-12-language-life.html

 

[Kylie]

No, I don't mean amino acids. I mean the biological information from which the materials of DNA instruct and specify towards function and form.

Are you asking where adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine come from?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you asking where adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine come from?

No.

 

[Kylie]

No.

Then you don't seem to know what you are talking about. Your idea of "information" appears to be vague and ill-defined. Tell me exactly what you mean by information and we'll go from there.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you don't seem to know what you are talking about. Your idea of "information" appears to be vague and ill-defined. Tell me exactly what you mean by information and we'll go from there.

Perhaps it is you who doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[coffee4u]

You can talk to them about what they believe. My position is that the supernatural has not been demonstrated to exist so I will not believe it exists until it can be. I am not saying that it does not exist.

Ok, but then your analogy about denying the existence of my brother is wrong.

So god does play favorites.

So instead of making laws to show them how to live morally he gives them immoral laws because if he did not people would just make worse laws?

Leeway to kill homosexuals? Leeway to beat slaves?

Only for Hebrew slaves. Read the Bible, God said to take slaves from surrounding nations. These were not bondservants that were paid.

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Lev 25:44-46 ESV.

These people were taken forcibly considered property by God they could be bought or sold and even given as an inheritance. So no, salvery in the bible was not just bondservents.

Notice God says here that people are property.

So God in his wisdom said you could beat a slave as long as you don't kill him to encourage people to stop beating slaves? That makes no sense.

So killing little children and keeping unmarried women as sex slaves is a good thing?

Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. - Numbers 31:15-18


Just think about being one of those people with children.

I think this is because I have read the bible.
He also did not have to have cruel rules for enslaving people, order the killing of children etc. I think you need to come to grips to what the Bible actually says about Gods morality.

Look, in the end I used to defend these passages as well. I just think that they plainly say God ordered immoral acts. I know that you have a better morality than this.

You know very well that I read the Bible. It's useless talking to you since you are closed off. You ask why God doesn't show himself, take a look at yourself.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

If you know of another source then by all means come out with it and you will be the recipient of the Nobel.

You have this exactly backwards. You are claiming that an intelligent being is behind the information in DNA. If you can demonstrate that then you will win a Nobel prize. I am claiming I don't know. I don't have to show anything for my position.

Language and codes are products of intelligence, which you agreed in your post earlier, except you added that it could be demonstrated as being by intelligence. How is that demonstrated?

We believe they are products of intelligence because we can demonstrate that they are. You have not demonstrated that intelligence was behind the info.

No, my problem is that you continue to say that you are open to God and then you will not allow supernatural explanations. Do you see the problem with your claim? You understand that language and codes are products of intelligence but you will not allow that to be evidence of an intelligent Being.

Nope. I am open to a god claim but if you are going to use supernatural explanations for your claim then you need to show that the supernatural is possible. Something that does not exist cannot be an explanation for something. First demonstrate the supernatural then we will talk.

Just how would you accept that demonstration? If one knows that intelligence is the only known mechanism that uses language and codes, and we find it within life itself, what more of a demonstration is needed?

You cannot show that intelligence is the only mechanism that uses codes and languages. Also, I am not convinced that there is a code or language in life. We know that codes and languages are created by people because we can demonstrate that. You cannot demonstrate this for what you think is a code in life. This is what you don't seem to get.

Well then my friend you would not be included into the majority of biologists who have researched it.

So we know how life started on this planet? That is news to me.

What supports the supernatural exists? If evidence for intelligence is not acceptable, what is?

I don't know, that is your problem. You are making the claim. You need better evidence for intelligence other than just saying we can demonstrate intelligence for other intelligence so we just need to believe intelligence is behind life.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You know very well that I read the Bible. It's unless talking to you since you are closed off. You ask why God doesn't show himself, take a look at yourself.

I thought you would probably bow out and not answer the hard questions I posed about the text. I did not think you would then blame me for your inability to respond.