Use whatever definitions you choose but just solve the problem. Why do these debates always lead to semantics? Is it an attempt to escape the problem?
Upvote
0
No word has been redefined. You defined information as knowledge, yet failed to explain how the information you discuss can be considered knowledge.RFHendrix said:Modern science: redefine words until the problem dissapears!
David Gould said:No, Shannon did not discuss the origin of information. But we have found it is perfectly possible to create information (using Shannon's definition) through undirected processes.
As such, the information content (again, using Shannon's definition) of DNA might not require a director.
In addition:
taken from: http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/shannon.htm
So meaning is irrelevent in Shannon's definition of information. A piece of information does not have to mean anything.
If you accept Shannon, you basically destroy your entire argument.
In philosophy and in science precision is the key. That is why philosophers like to make sure that everyone is on the same page with regard to meaning and why scientists use mathematics wherever possible. It avoids a lot of confusion.RFHendrix said:Use whatever definitions you choose but just solve the problem. Why do these debates always lead to semantics? Is it an attempt to escape the problem?
I have. Either I am obtuse or you are not being clear enough. I will accept that I am obtuse. As such, can you explain again (more simply) what your argument is?RFHendrix said:Why don't you actually read what I said?
notto said:How do we determine that information is involved if we can not measure it and compare it to something that does not contain information to contrast it?
How do we determine that information is created through a directive force if we can obtain the same type of information from an undirected force?
David Gould said:I have. Either I am obtuse or you are not being clear enough. I will accept that I am obtuse. As such, can you explain again (more simply) what your argument is?
And in a chemical reaction, how can we determine when a "coded communication" has happened and when one has not?RFHendrix said:Well the problem is we cannot obtain the same type of information from an underected source that we can from a directed one in all cases. Yes, a machine can type this sentence but it cannot intelligently answer it unless there has been intelligent input. That is the essence of language that is not duplicated by any random process. A parot says a lot of things that could be determined to be the result of intelligent input if we are not careful but two parrots carrying on an extended conversation would prove that there was more than a random process involved. If there is no way to prove that intelligent life exists then why are people trying to find radio signals in space in order to find intelligent life? Coded communication determines the input of intelligence.
Does your information equate to Shannon's information? If it does, you have a problem as Shannon's information can be created by a non-directed process.RFHendrix said:I said that Shannon's definition was fine for the use he intended. It was not intended to determine the origin of information or whether intelligence was involved one way or the other.
notto said:And in a chemical reaction, how can we determine when a "coded communication" has happened and when one has not?
How do I know that Oxygen and Hydrogen are not exchanging "coded communications" when they react to create water.
Do these communications always have one response due to the molecules involved? Is there ever an instance where one says "Do this" and the other says "No"? If not, how does this "communication" differ from regular reactions that are not directed by this communication?
David Gould said:Which leaves us back at the point where it is impossible to measure the type of information that you are talking about ... unless you have a way of doing do?
Then define information in such a way thatRFHendrix said:It is not impossible. The discovery of coded communication indicates intelligent input. That is what we have discovered in life.
What limits and directs? It is not the information, it is the molecules themselves. They can behave in no other way. They are not coded in any analogy to language, they are understood and only have meaning based on the reactions they take place in.RFHendrix said:Outside of life there are no exceptions. The chemical reactions are simple chemistry. But there is such a thing as a genetic code in life. That is not a made up word to describe a chemical reaction that also takes place in non-living things. It is the proper use of the word because it describes the specified direction of certain reactions at specified times by way of coded information. The coded information limits and directs certain reactions for a specific purpose in a specified sequence just as a language directs sounds (or written words) in order to convey a specified message.
David Gould said:Then define information in such a way that
1.) does not pressuppose the conclusion and
2.) makes it possible to tell the difference between coded communication and non-coded communication
In other words, using your definition can you tell the difference between:
ioashguoahsgGHGo;SHgASOihjuh
and
to shoot
Actually, I typed them in but I only assigned meaning to one of them.RFHendrix said:No, you wrote them both.
In order to tell the difference one would normally need more information to use as a sample. If we saw scrawled in the sand; "help, I'm lost" and then a few feet away we saw; "too bad sucker", we would be pretty sure that there were some not so intelligent beings involved in this somewhere. And I will leave it to you to define words however you want. Good night...