Symposium on Biological Information at Cornell

[Jorge]

But I can claim that same thing for solar fusion. Fusion has an identifiable code and a syntax.

Kindly share it with me. Methinks you don't grasp what an abstract code and syntax are.

I could assume semantics just as Gitt "infers" it from the pragmatic function of DNA. If I assume that the purpose of solar fusion is to create heavy elements (we need them to fulfill the purpose of maintaining life, after all), then I've got all four. And I could just as easily consider the sun to be a machine as you and get consider the cell to be a machine. And still you haven't given me a good reason to see DNA as containing Universal Information but not solar fusion.

I'll wait for your answer above .......................

I've got the book sitting here next to me but thank you for the offer. Speaking of those pages, let me connect my argument of solar fusion with the one I read in the book -- Fraunhofer lines. You and Gitt claim that Faunhofer lines are not in the domain of UI because they contain no code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics or apobetics. Supposedly, you can claim that Fraunhofer lines contain no pragmatic or apobetic function . . . but you certainly cannot say this with any sort of absolute certainty. You can merely say that, to you, they appear to have no pragmatic or apobetic function. Now, if someone did claim to find a pragmatic and apobetic function to Fraunhofer lines, that person would supposedly be excused from making a strong case for Fraunhofer lines containing semantics by the same way that Gitt is excused -- the person could simply say that semantics is inferred from the pragmatic and apobetic functions. Thus, the only strong test for UI being in Fraunhofer lines is cosyntics. In this area, Gitt writes that Fraunhofer lines "are not abstract . . . but instead are fixed, wholly determined physical properties (in other words, an inherent physical relationship exists." ("Without Excuse," pg. 83) But there is no doubt that the DNA protein-encoding system also works by an inherent physical relationship -- each step in the transcription process is governed by "wholly determined physical properties." With Fraunhofer lines, Gitt simply claims that no machine or system is known to use Fraunhofer lines in a way that would put them in the domain of UI and so it seems like they are excluded from being UI solely because we don't know of any pragmatic or apobetic functions. If we create those functions, though (by the same way we say the purpose of DNA transcription is to "maintain life"), it seems that we can fit both Fraunhofer lines and solar fusion into the same domain of UI as DNA-protein transcription or natural language.

I had lengthy discussions with Compton (the other author) on this point (Fraunhofer lines).
I say that in a sense there is purpose in these lines. In Romans 1 we learn that God is
manifest in ALL things (so that they are Without Excuse - hehe). I believe that God has
left His "fingerprints" in everything so that we are able to "see" His hand in everything.
God's purpose is clear : provide evidence in ALL things (big and small and in-between)
that He is Creator of all and that He is real.

What? The point is that when the code is truly abstract, it doesn't matter what material you use to express it. You can write software code and have it executed across multiple different hardware architectures, you can write a sentence in English with pencil lead, ink, rocks or felled trees and it would retain its functional aspects. You cannot do that with DNA which means that DNA is not really, and does not really contain, an abstraction at all. Rather it falls in line with Fraunhofer lines, having "wholly determined physical properties" and an "inherent physical relationship" with the other parts of the transcription system.

No, no, no --- you are once again confusing things. I totally agree with some of what you
say. But just because a code is abstract does not mean that ...

Look, God used the DRPSS to 'write' the protein-synthesizing function into the DNA. It is an
abstract code 'written' via molecules. It was not written with pencil lead, or ink or felled tress.
It was written with molecules. The carrier of this code (molecules) is certainly not abstract
but the CODE itself is certainly abstract.

One more time : AUG is not methionine nor does it look like methionine nor does it function
like methionine. 'CAT' is not a cat nor does it look like a cat nor does it function like a cat.
AUG is an abstract representation that gets "translated" into the actual entity (via a complex
series of molecular machines and processes) just as 'cat' gets translated (in your mind)
into the actual entity that it represents. When you hear 'cat' you do not "see" a 'c' 'a' 't'.
You "see" a mammal that purrs and meows. The abstraction 'becomes' the actual entity.

Try thinking about that and relate it to the DRPSS.

Your definition for UI is "a symbolically encoded, abstractly represented message conveying the expected action(s) and the intended purpose(s)." (pg. 70) But it doesn't seem like you've given anything like unambiguous classification for DNA being UI and not solar fusion. As I posted earlier, we can certainly depict solar fusion as being code. The initial elements of fusion bear no "inherent physical resemblance" to heavy elements that are created in the process. So long as I claim that the "code" of solar fusion is accomplishing the function of creating heavy elements, I've got a reason to claim that pragmatics and apobetics is sufficiently fulfilled. You haven't given a very clear reason why solar fusion can't be incorporated into the domain of Universal Information. And if I can wiggle Fraunhofer lines and solar fusion into UI, is it a particularly valuable classification?

If you can provide the abstract code and syntax for solar fusion then you have a point.
But I do not think that you or anyone can do this. The components that are involved in
nuclear fusion do NOT abstractly represent anything else -- they are the ACTUAL entities
representing themselves in concrete form.

I just had the thought that you are trying to take this to an extreme and inappropriate level.
Yes, it is possible to 'idealize' this so that EVERYTHING is "abstract".
Try this : the code in this message written in English is explicit; the code of the DNA is
explicit; the code on Braille is explicit; the code in a mathematical equation is explicit, etc.

We refer to this as primary UI. A ballpoint pen, on the other hand, required primary UI
to design and construct it, but does NOT explicitly exhibit UI. It does, however, exhibit
what we refer to as secondary UI. Secondary UI allows for detection of design but not
for classification as primary UI. The pen does not explicitly exhibit a code (where's
the abstract, substitutive representation and syntax?).

BTW, that word "substitutive" may also help you to understand. In UI, the coded message
serves a substitutive function - it substitutes (abstractly) the actual entity since it is not the
actual entity itself. Note that the ballpoint pen IS the actual entity itself - there is no
substitutive function involved.

Jorge

[Roy]

One more time : AUG is not methionine nor does it look like methionine nor does it function
like methionine. 'CAT' is not a cat nor does it look like a cat nor does it function like a cat.
AUG is an abstract representation that gets "translated" into the actual entity (via a complex
series of molecular machines and processes) just as 'cat' gets translated (in your mind)
into the actual entity that it represents.

Well, it kinda depends on what Jorge is referring to when he writes "AUG".

Either
1) "AUG" refers to three nucleotides in an RNA strand, in which case it is not an abstract representation but a physical object.
or
2) "AUG" refers to the symbols or the names given to those nucleotides, in which case it is an abstract code but it doesn't get translated.
or
3) Jorge is delivering his usual deliberate vagueness in order to avoid being shown wrong.

singing:
Hey 'doctor'! What d'you mean by "AUG"?
Hey 'doctor'! Is it 1) or 2) or 3)?
Hey 'doctor'! Real or abstract entity?
I say 'doctor'! Or just smoke and mirror tactics
Paid a dime for a doctorate and got a nice diploma...

Roy

[phank]

Jorge doesn't seem too willing to defend his new made-up definition of 'abstract code', or provide any examples of code that is not abstract (under his new meaning).

I guess when you're infallible like Jorge all you have to do is make the assertion, and that makes you correct. At least in his own scheming Fundy mind, anyway.

- T

For years, I've been calling this the "religious method" of knowledge - you SAY something is true, and it becomes true. And it's hard to miss the essence of magic in this approach. In SAYING something into being, they are casting a spell. If people accept and believe, the spell has worked. If whole lots of people accept and believe, then the spell has physically reified the imaginary, rendering it proof against mere evidence or logic.

[lao tzu]

Well, it kinda depends on what Jorge is referring to when he writes "AUG".

Either
1) "AUG" refers to three nucleotides in an RNA strand, in which case it is not an abstract representation but a physical object.
or
2) "AUG" refers to the symbols or the names given to those nucleotides, in which case it is an abstract code but it doesn't get translated.
or
3) Jorge is delivering his usual deliberate vagueness in order to avoid being shown wrong.

Does the abstract code drive the reaction, or merely describe it? Gravity worked just fine long before we knew how to formulate it.

singing:
Hey 'doctor'! What d'you mean by "AUG"?
Hey 'doctor'! Is it 1) or 2) or 3)?
Hey 'doctor'! Real or abstract entity?
I say 'doctor'! Or just smoke and mirror tactics
Paid a dime for a doctorate and got a nice diploma...

Roy

Catchy tune.

[Wally]

I guess when you're infallible like Jorge all you have to do is make the assertion, and that makes you correct. At least in his own scheming Fundy mind, anyway.

- T

Genuflect when you say that!

[Ansgar Seraph]

Kindly share it with me. Methinks you don't grasp what an abstract code and syntax are.


I'll wait for your answer above .......................




I had lengthy discussions with Compton (the other author) on this point (Fraunhofer lines).
I say that in a sense there is purpose in these lines. In Romans 1 we learn that God is
manifest in ALL things (so that they are Without Excuse - hehe). I believe that God has
left His "fingerprints" in everything so that we are able to "see" His hand in everything.
God's purpose is clear : provide evidence in ALL things (big and small and in-between)
that He is Creator of all and that He is real.




No, no, no --- you are once again confusing things. I totally agree with some of what you
say. But just because a code is abstract does not mean that ...

Look, God used the DRPSS to 'write' the protein-synthesizing function into the DNA. It is an
abstract code 'written' via molecules. It was not written with pencil lead, or ink or felled tress.
It was written with molecules. The carrier of this code (molecules) is certainly not abstract
but the CODE itself is certainly abstract.

One more time : AUG is not methionine nor does it look like methionine nor does it function
like methionine. 'CAT' is not a cat nor does it look like a cat nor does it function like a cat.
AUG is an abstract representation that gets "translated" into the actual entity (via a complex
series of molecular machines and processes) just as 'cat' gets translated (in your mind)
into the actual entity that it represents. When you hear 'cat' you do not "see" a 'c' 'a' 't'.
You "see" a mammal that purrs and meows. The abstraction 'becomes' the actual entity.

Try thinking about that and relate it to the DRPSS.


If you can provide the abstract code and syntax for solar fusion then you have a point.
But I do not think that you or anyone can do this. The components that are involved in
nuclear fusion do NOT abstractly represent anything else -- they are the ACTUAL entities
representing themselves in concrete form.

I just had the thought that you are trying to take this to an extreme and inappropriate level.
Yes, it is possible to 'idealize' this so that EVERYTHING is "abstract".
Try this : the code in this message written in English is explicit; the code of the DNA is
explicit; the code on Braille is explicit; the code in a mathematical equation is explicit, etc.

We refer to this as primary UI. A ballpoint pen, on the other hand, required primary UI
to design and construct it, but does NOT explicitly exhibit UI. It does, however, exhibit
what we refer to as secondary UI. Secondary UI allows for detection of design but not
for classification as primary UI. The pen does not explicitly exhibit a code (where's
the abstract, substitutive representation and syntax?).

BTW, that word "substitutive" may also help you to understand. In UI, the coded message
serves a substitutive function - it substitutes (abstractly) the actual entity since it is not the
actual entity itself. Note that the ballpoint pen IS the actual entity itself - there is no
substitutive function involved.

Jorge

Didn't we already go over this in Post #73? If I claim that the purpose of solar fusion is to create heavy elements like iron, then why can't I say that the code below has syntax?

Click image for larger versionNameImage 002.pngViews5Size3.png


Those specific lines of code can be said to "represent" iron or another heavy metal, right? So, in the same sense that you claim a codon is an abstraction for a protein, I could claim that two helium isotopes and a hydrogen isotope are an abstraction for iron. Both are actual entities representing themselves in concrete form (a codon is an actual entity and represents itself, too) but both could be said with equal validity to represent a material entity that is a production of those entities (at least in part). And since the above "code" certainly has a "syntax," in that it has a grammatical set of rules that allows the symbols to be meaningfully represented, it seems to be that DNA protein synthesis and solar fusion can both be said to contain UI, right?

But I think that you give the point away with regard to Fraunhofer lines. If you can establish a purpose for everything, you can generate a pragmatic intention for everything. And if everything has a pragmatic function, you can do as Gitt does in the book and infer semantics. And if you can infer semantics, it is fairly simple to come up with a code and syntax that represents the physical processes involved. If you can imagine a purpose, in other words, you can claim UI. And with absolutely no way to objectively quantify suspected purposes, it appears that the domain of UI is both boundless and rather useless.

--Sam

[Roy]

Does the abstract code drive the reaction, or merely describe it? Gravity worked just fine long before we knew how to formulate it.

That depends upon which code you're talking about. The letters A,U,G,C and the amino-acid names describe what is going on - they are abstract, but don't actually produce anything. The tRNA molecules that bind to codons and amino-acids and which act as intermediaries between RNA and proteins could be said to drive the reaction, but they're not abstract. The mapping between codons and amino-acids is like an abstract code in the sense that theoretically there are different possible mappings; other tRNA molecules could (and in a few cases do) map the same codons onto different amino-acids. It's not a message though, and doesn't transmit any information (and there's no receiver).

Catchy tune.

Yeah, it's been popping into my head at random intervals since I wrote that parody. Wouldn't mind, but it's a really, really annoying song - which is probably why my instinct linked it with Jorge.

Roy

[Tiggy]

That depends upon which code you're talking about. The letters A,U,G,C and the amino-acid names describe what is going on - they are abstract, but don't actually produce anything. The tRNA molecules that bind to codons and amino-acids and which act as intermediaries between RNA and proteins could be said to drive the reaction, but they're not abstract. The mapping between codons and amino-acids is like an abstract code in the sense that theoretically there are different possible mappings; other tRNA molecules could (and in a few cases do) map the same codons onto different amino-acids. It's not a message though, and doesn't transmit any information (and there's no receiver).

There's nothing new in Jorge's garbage, it's the same old bait and switch from the Fraudmeister. Deliberately equivocating between the abstract map and the real physical territory.

Yeah, it's been popping into my head at random intervals since I wrote that parody. Wouldn't mind, but it's a really, really annoying song - which is probably why my instinct linked it with Jorge.

You could have channeled Robert Palmer

Doctor, doctor, give me the news
I've got a... bad case of Jorge blues!



- T

[OmniSkeptical]

“Natural designs are often one notch more sophisticated than the best engineering,” Uhg. But making them?

[wattsr1]

Didn't we already go over this in Post #73? If I claim that the purpose of solar fusion is to create heavy elements like iron, then why can't I say that the code below has syntax?

Click image for larger versionNameImage 002.pngViews5Size3.png


Those specific lines of code can be said to "represent" iron or another heavy metal, right? So, in the same sense that you claim a codon is an abstraction for a protein, I could claim that two helium isotopes and a hydrogen isotope are an abstraction for iron. Both are actual entities representing themselves in concrete form (a codon is an actual entity and represents itself, too) but both could be said with equal validity to represent a material entity that is a production of those entities (at least in part). And since the above "code" certainly has a "syntax," in that it has a grammatical set of rules that allows the symbols to be meaningfully represented, it seems to be that DNA protein synthesis and solar fusion can both be said to contain UI, right?

But I think that you give the point away with regard to Fraunhofer lines. If you can establish a purpose for everything, you can generate a pragmatic intention for everything. And if everything has a pragmatic function, you can do as Gitt does in the book and infer semantics. And if you can infer semantics, it is fairly simple to come up with a code and syntax that represents the physical processes involved. If you can imagine a purpose, in other words, you can claim UI. And with absolutely no way to objectively quantify suspected purposes, it appears that the domain of UI is both boundless and rather useless.

--Sam

The purpose of streams and rivers is to make smooth rounded stones.

They do this.

Therefore whenever you see a smooth rounded stone, you know that Jorge's god designed it. Petrology, with it's anti-god theories about running water and abrasion, is clearly not pure science, but rather is science falsely called.


I take Jorge's philosophy science seriously. It hangs together well. :)



Regards, Roland

[Tiggy]

The purpose of streams and rivers is to make smooth rounded stones.

They do this.

Therefore whenever you see a smooth rounded stone, you know that Jorge's god designed it. Petrology, with it's anti-god theories about running water and abrasion, is clearly not pure science, but rather is science falsely called.


I take Jorge's philosophy science seriously. It hangs together well. :)



Regards, Roland

<Jorge mode on>

Rivers and streams are abstract codes because they look nothing like the smooth stones they create.

All abstract codes are designed by intelligence

Therefore my literal Biblical interpretations are correct, God created everything 6000 years ago.

My logic is infallible because I said so.

<Jorge mode off>

- T

[Catholicity]

Genuflect when you say that!

All Hail the great Pope Llama Jorge:

[Faid]

Jorge, can you please give us an example of a "non-abstract" code, under your definition for "abstract"? It might help clear any confusion on our part.

[rossum]

All Hail the great Pope Llama Jorge:

Be careful. The Dalai Llama doesn't like others muscling in on his territory:

rossum

[rogue06]

Jorge, can you please give us an example of a "non-abstract" code, under your definition for "abstract"? It might help clear any confusion on our part.

That really would be helpful and could help cut through a lot of questions - though Jorge would likely complain that it would probably create many more.