Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Book is not the Ink and Hardware is not the Software

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

 

In this post the UD news desk quotes OOL researcher Jack Szostak:  “We think that a primitive cell has to have two parts. First, it has to have a cell membrane that can be a boundary between itself and the rest of the earth. And then there has to be some genetic material, which has to perform some function that’s useful for the cell and get replicated to be inherited.” 

 He believes they have the “membrane” part figured out, which leads him to suggest that they are about “halfway” to figuring it all out.

Really?  Consider a computer in a paper sack.  If I figure out how to make a paper sack does that mean I am “halfway” toward figuring out how to make the computer-sack combo? 

The other thing that caught my eye was in the comments.  Joseph suggest that even if it is true that they are halfway there in figuring out the origin of the “hardware,” they have not even begun to figure out the origin of the “software” (which I take to mean the digital code in DNA).

To this, Dr. Liddle makes the astonishing reply:  “The hardware is the software.”

No, Dr. Liddle.  The medium is not the message.  Your statement is akin to saying of a book, “The paper and ink are the novel.”  This is obviously not so for the book.  Why do you think it is so for the cell?

Comments
r7: If you think you can't explain it, you can maybe quote from Floridi, or anyone else. Take your own responsibilities, instead of just suggesting a bibliography!gpuccio
October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Perhaps Luciano Floridi can exlain it better than I. Try this: Chapter 6 Biological infromation from Information: a very short introduction, 2010, Oxford University Press.rhampton7
October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
"Therefore the cellular machinery is created by humans." It is a caricature. Nobody says that. The bad thing about this statement of yours is that you know it is not true and yet you say so.Eugene S
October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
r7: You really confound me. Quantum theory, Physical information, and the difference between the MTC and the Philosophy of Semantic information — what you claim must be true is, as of yet, just an metaphysical assertion. What is a metaphysical assertion? I don't understand your point. Let's clarify: I am not saying that information is not physical quantum information, but semantic information. I am just saying a very obvious thing, that physical quantum information certainly exists, and is not semantic information, and that semantic information is another thing, and is always the product of a conscious being. Do you understand? We are talking of two different things. Both certainly exist. There is nothing metaphysical in this concept. Photons may have information or not: it depends on how we define information, and on what we are going to discover in the still rather problematic field of quantum entanglement. But, anyway, even if photons do have information (in the sense of physical information), still that is not semantic information (that is, the explicit product of a cosncious representation). You say: the universe appears to function without self-awareness Maybe. Or maybe not. Very imply, that is not the point we are discussing. We are not discussing the universe. We ar discussing designed things. And we are not discussing whether the universe is designed or not, because, unless I have been distracted, we are not discussing the cosmological argument. And even if we were discussing if the universe is designed or not (which we are not), in any case the universe could well have been designed in its beginning, and then kept going without what you call "self-awareness". Or the universe could just ne self-aware, and you be wrong. The point is, nothing of that is pertinent. We are discussing designed things inside the universe, and designed things inside the universe are the product of conscious representations. We are not discussing the self-awareness of the whole universe, but the awareness of beings inside the universe, manifesting in specific temporal history. We are discussing the design in human artifacts and in biological proteins, that, if I am not wrong, both originated well after the big bang. Furthermore, the existence of a conscious observer outside the universe is a metaphysical claim. Perfectly correct. That's why it is not what we are discussing in ID, in a scientific context. But the existence of a designer of biological information is not, in itself, a metaphysical claim. It could have metaphysical implications (like any scientific view), or just not. But in principle, it is an attempt at explaining what we observe, and therefore a perfectly scientific claim. So to state that 1) a photon emitted from a radioactive decay event must have a higher meaning and/or purpose; and that, 2) (a) supra-universal intelligent agent(s) must therefore exist; is necessarily a metaphysical assertion. IOW: an article of faith. OK. But I have never done any such statement. So, let's recapitulate. What I am stating is: a) that consciousness is a fact, that we perceive directly in ourselves, and infer in others. b) that, being a fact, consciousness must be part of our scientific map of reality, whatever our theories about the ultimate explanations of things. c) that a whole set of observable events, the subjectiive representations of consciousness, cannot in any way be explained by purely objective theoriesn (IOWs, strong AI is false). d) that some fundamental concepts of human cognition (specifically meaning, semantic information and purpose) cannot even be defined without any refernce to subjective representations, that is to conscious agents. e) that design, and the semantic information in it, are always the product of conscious agents. f) that design is onjectively recognizable as such by cosncious agents only if the semantic information in it is complex enough according to Shannon criteria. All of that is empirical reasoning. Nothing of that is in principle metaphysical. I am not saying that cosnciousness is metaphysical. On the other hand, I am cerainly not saying that it is physical. What I am saying is that it exists (which is an empirical fact), and that it cannot be explained by physical theories (which is, IMO, an obvious conclusion, that I have discussed in detailed many times). That can be right or wrong, but nowhere in my reasoning I have used the concept of "metaphysical". Human consciousness may be metaphysical or not (I really don't know, because I have real difficulties in finding a true definition for what is "physical"). But it certainly exists, and it certainly has subjective representations, and it certainly represents meanings and semantic information and purposes. We find nothing like that in the so called "purely onjective physical world" (whatever it is), unless a cosncious designer has outputted semantic information into it. The whole point of ID is that biological information is semantic information, complex enough (by far!) to be recognizable as such, and that therefore the best explanation for it is that it has been designed by one ((or more) conscious intelligent being.gpuccio
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
I've tried a few searches today and came up empty. I thought it might have been in one of the monkey-typewriter threads, one of which I thought had more than 100 comments, but I can't track it down. I'm not imagining things - really I'm not. As best as I recall, I made the point that a photon contained information about the star that emitted it, temperature, distance, speed, etc. My opponent made the point that these were properties of the star and should not be considered as information. There was a bit more to it than that, but nothing I can quote with certitude.rhampton7
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
r7, can you provide a link to the conversation you were having, thanks.Upright BiPed
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
But the concept itself of function can be recognized only by a cosncious observer.
Which goes back to my comment about Quantum theory, Physical information, and the difference between the MTC and the Philosophy of Semantic information -- what you claim must be true is, as of yet, just an metaphysical assertion.
I object to the word “metaphysical”.
So noted, but there is no way around it. There is no empirical method to detect a higher meaning or purpose for the Physical Information of Quantum theory other than a thing's base existence and mechanical function. I had an argument some days ago about photons and if they contained "information" (which I supported). The counter argument - made by an ID proponents - was that a lack of an encoded message meant that the photon did not possess information. Within Quantum theory, however, the photon itself is a singular bit of encoded information regarding the state of the universe at moment C(2) needed to inform moment C(3), and simultaneously a singular bit of a decoded message, the output of the prior moment, C(1), all the while remaining a discrete entity (from the human perspective) the product of the encoded/decoded message. As such, the universe appears to function without self-awareness. Furthermore, the existence of a conscious observer outside the universe is a metaphysical claim. So to state that 1) a photon emitted from a radioactive decay event must have a higher meaning and/or purpose; and that, 2) (a) supra-universal intelligent agent(s) must therefore exist; is necessarily a metaphysical assertion. IOW: an article of faith.rhampton7
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
r7, Thanks for the link, I had digested that page some time ago. I assume you can see that I am most interested in actual observations. And apparently I have not enticed you to attack my argument directly, so I will leave it at that. cheers...Upright BiPed
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Petrushka, GP can choose to answer your silly charge for himself, or not. But I have sense of at least some of the positions he holds on these issues, and you yourself have made comments here and elsewhere that display your position as well. For instance, you say that the action of DNA in decoding information is pure chemistry. And you go on to say that "superimposing a layer of abstraction" is an "equivocation". I would simply remind you that all tranfer of recorded information is physical, so the fact that we can follow a physical pathway for it is hardly a viable argument against its semiotic nature. Also regarding the "layer of abstraction", if you can produce evidence that cytosine-adenine-gaunine is inherently mapped to the binding of glutamine to a polypeptide (in any physical context) as a material property of those three nucleotides (in that specific order), and further if you can produce evidence showing other related phenomena (such as the operational rule of codons being three nucleotides in length) are actually determined by physics - then we'll probably just have to go on the evidence as it is found in nature. I've laid out my argument, and I am fairly sure you have seen it. I would welcome the opportunbity for you to tell me where I have equivocated. Thanks.Upright BiPed
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
Petrushka, My answer would be that all information, that is instantiated in matter, has ultimately a non material origin, or at least not material in the sense of what we now know /define as the material world. Some day we might find the interface between consciousness and matter and then we will have a clearer view of where information comes from. With our current knowledge of matter and consciousness we can only be amazed by the fact that matter arrange under the influence of intelligence to instantiate information. This is a serious subject of investigation and I have seen great minds engaging with this question. I hold that your materialist notions of information have no empirical support suggesting that information comes from matter arranging itself. mullerpr
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
r7: You say: "Information need not have a metaphysical “meaning and purpose” beyond its own existence and function" But the concept itself of function can be recognized only by a cosncious observer. I object to the word "metaphysical". I would just say that information, as meaning and function and purpose, exists only in cosnciousness, and is only transmitted by a non conscious vehicle. That the physical vehicle can determine restraints to the transmission of information is certainly true. But that does not change the fact that information is such only in subjective representation. Shannon's work is very deep and pertinent, but it has nothing to do with the meaning, and therefore with semantic information. Indeed, it is not a theory of information, but rather of communication. The ID theory, in all its forms, gives special importance both to the semantic value of information and to its mathemathical complexity. The concept of specification is strictly connected to the meaning of information, to its origin in a conscious purposeful representation. On the other hand, however, the computation of the complexity of the information is done according to the concepts of Shannon.gpuccio
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
It's true that humans have been "imparting into physical media 'meaning and purpose' for millennia". But note what gpuccio said:
Information is about the meaning conveyed to a conscious observer ny the form imparted to the physical medium
That's why I cited quantum theory and physical information. Information need not have a metaphysical "meaning and purpose" beyond its own existence and function. Furthermore, the "separation between information and its physical medium" isn't an absolute (i.e. quantum theory and physical information). This article on the Semantic Conceptions of Information explains the difference between the mathematical theory of communication (MTC) -- which is inclusive of Shannon's information theory and hence the math that supports the work of Dembksi and Meyer -- and a philosophical understanding of semantic information:
The mathematical theory of communication approaches information as a physical phenomenon. Its central question is whether and how much uninterpreted data can be encoded and transmitted efficiently by means of a given alphabet and through a given channel. MTC is not interested in the meaning, “aboutness”, relevance, reliability, usefulness or interpretation of information, but only in the level of detail and frequency in the uninterpreted data, being these symbols, signals or messages. Philosophical approaches differ from MTC in two main respects. First, they seek to give an account of information as semantic content, investigating questions like “how can something count as information? and why?”, “how can something carry information about something else?”, “how can semantic information be generated and flow?”, “how is information related to error, truth and knowledge?”, “when is information useful?”... Second, philosophical theories of semantic information also seek to connect it to other relevant concepts of information and more complex forms of epistemic, mental and doxastic phenomena.
The key insight is this:
At one extreme of the spectrum, any philosophical theory of semantic-factual information is supposed to be very strongly constrained, perhaps even overdetermined, by MTC, somewhat as mechanical engineering is by Newtonian physics. Weaver's optimistic interpretation of Shannon's work is a typical example. At the other extreme, any philosophical theory of semantic-factual information is supposed to be only weakly constrained, perhaps even completely underdetermined, by MTC, somewhat as tennis is constrained by Newtonian physics, that is in the most uninteresting, inconsequential and hence disregardable sense (see for example Sloman [1978] and Thagard [1990]).
rhampton7
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
r7: Please, note in the previous definition the two aspects of the word, completely consistent with its true meaning: a) "a message (utterance or expression) or collection of messages that consists of an ordered sequence of symbols". That refers obviously to information coded symbolically in a physical medium. b) "the meaning that can be interpreted from such a message or collection of messages". That refers obviously to the conscious representation and intuition of cognitive meaning that only a cosncious observer can derive form the information coded in the physical medium. In all cases, semantic information is a "message", something that allows the passage of a specific representation from one conscious being (the designer) to another conscious being (the observer/recognizer). That has been true for millennia, and it is still true for all persons of sense.gpuccio
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
r7: As UB has already pointed out, I was not referring to that kind of use for the word information, which is not pertinent to our discussion. Please, look at the first definition in Wikipedia article about information. I quote it here for you: "Information in its most restricted technical sense is a message (utterance or expression) or collection of messages that consists of an ordered sequence of symbols, or it is the meaning that can be interpreted from such a message or collection of messages." As you can see, this definition, which reflects very well the most common and pertinent use of the word, the semantic use, as again UB has well pointed out, is the only definition pertinent to our discussion. And it is completely connected to cosnciousness, and to the concept of meaning.gpuccio
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
r7, GP makes the statement that humans have been imparting into physical media "meaning and purpose" for millennia. You suggest that his definitons do not "comport with quantum theory as exemplified by the Black hole information paradox" and you further suggest that "confusion arises from failing to articulate a particular meaning" My comment is that GP's view is well established. Relating my comment to DNA is simply a result of this being an ID blog where these things are often discussed in relation to origins, biology, and other topics under the general heading of ID. Moreover, I was tempting you to assist me by attacking my argument, where I think the definitons of terms and their observable physical properties are well defined.Upright BiPed
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
I apologize, I have inadvertantly assigned Cabal's statement to Petrushka. My apologies.Upright BiPed
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Pet, My comment was specifically relatd to your post. You said "essentially, it is all chemistry, nature at work". I challenge that, and gave a link to contrary evidence. "Shifting definitons" seems to be your counter argument as oppossed to commenting directly on the evidence that refutes the statement you made.Upright BiPed
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Speaking of babies, just holding your breath till you turn blue doesn't make your assertions true. You may stamp your feet and have public tantrums, but it doesn't change reality, which existed before your consciousness and will continue to exist after you are gone.Petrushka
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
There's a name for the shifting of definitions in mid argument. It's equivocation. The cellular machinery is a compiler. Compilers are created by humans Therefore the cellular machinery is created by humans.Petrushka
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed, I'm confused as to how your reply relates to gpuccio's comment -- the reason for my reply to gpuccio, et al.rhampton7
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Petruska,
Provide an example of information that has no physical instance.
Provide an example recorded information that doesn't use physical representations and protocols.Upright BiPed
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
r7, The transfer of information from DNA does not involve the Black Hole information paradox, and nor does it require a conscious observer. It is semioticUpright BiPed
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
There is nothing that preclude information processing to happen before it instantiate in a physical form.
Provide an example of information that has no physical instance.Petrushka
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
It finally occurred to me what has been bothering me about this discussion about information. The type of definitions put forth by gpuccio and others does not comport with quantum theory as exemplified by the Black hole information paradox, because it relies on the concept of Physical information (link to wikipedia article with a brief discussion on the various, distinct meanings and uses of information) which has no need for a conscious observer to convey a meaningful instance of information. I think it would be in everyone's best interest to review the article, as it makes clear that confusion arises from failing to articulate a particular meaning.rhampton7
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
DrRec: "No, it doesn’t, and the paper doesn’t contain the information. The information is represented in the pattern of ink that lies on the papers surface. To create the information you have to add material." ===== All communications/Languages/Codes etc have patterns. All Western European Languages use Roman letter patterns, Ancient Egyptian used hieroglyphic patterns, Eastern Europe uses Cyrillic alphabet patterns, Chinese and Japanese use their own characters as paaterns. But the one thing these patterns have in common is they come from intelligence. Not all patterns in nature have codes or languages. The Grand Canyon is NOT a code or language. Neither are the stars of the Heavens for which Astrologers tried to influence others. The pattern of writing on a paper as we ALL know it comes from minds. DNA by it's very complex and sophisticated communications with it's blueprints, plans, ideas schematics, bytes & bits, etc, etc, etc show us a behavior that infers intelligence. Like it or not, blind undirected forces without purpose loses everytime.Eocene
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Cabal, what do you call someone who openly denies observable evidence to the contrary?Upright BiPed
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
It is interesting to observe how our darwinist friends need to rewrite all concepts about information, software and hardware, concepts that are now clear even to babies! So, now they say that information is not a correct abstract concept because it needs a physical medium to be written down... I suppose we should mention that to Microsoft and a gorup of other people. After all, it's all electromagnetism, nature at work! All this is ridiculous. That is the proof of how far apparently intelligent people must go when they have committed themselves to defending a fundamental original bias in their view of the world. I repeat here: nobody can define concepts such as meaning, purpose or information without any reference to consciousness. These are all concepts derived from conscious representations. The failure of strong AI to derive consciousness and its subjective events from purely objective patterns is also the failure of darwinism to derive information from purely objective explanations. A conscious designer is needed to produce designed things imparting information to matter. And a conscious observer is needed to recognize that information as such.gpuccio
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Cabal: essentially, it is all chemistry, nature at work This is one of the most senseless statements I have ever read. I will mark it for future reference, thank you.gpuccio
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
We can change the state without putting specified information in it. The RAM is still a RAM Information is neither matter nor energy- true matter and energy are mediums for informationJoseph
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Altering the state of the capicitors does not change the part into something else. Also the information is not the pattern but the recognition- ie mental recognition- of the pattern. Information is neither matter nor energy.Joseph
October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply