ID, Information, and Human Perception

So, if information isn't something that really exists. Would you mind to explain me the terms (and why these scientist use them?):

• complexity
• non-redundant
• measured
• estimating
• entropy
• compression
• randomly
• surrogates
• reduction
• correlations
• (secundary) structure

Thanks

Some remarks about the assumed similarities between alphabet and DNA soup:

• even if there is one-to-one relationship between DNA and the to be decoded protein, between 'Jesus' and the concept Jesus there isn't
• there is no direct causal relationship between letters and the word they form, you are using a spoon or something like that? (with your eyes closed, I assume)
• how do you simulate natural selection? how many words do you form without meaning?
• it's your knowledge of english that translates Jesus as indicating some person a long time ago (in Dutch for example it's misspelled: Jezus)
• how do you know it's irreducable complex?
  1. maybe a long time ago Jesu did mean something, and esu, and su ('his' in Spanish) and u ('you' in Dutch)
  2. maybe it had some other function in the past

Blending and particulate systems [Abler, 1989], a lot of water molecules give water properties that differ from any of their constituents.
There are several reasons to suggest that there are different types of realities. This doesn't mean that there have to be non-fysical realities, but that there are 'levels of reality' to discern. Even Churchland differs an auto-connected way of knowing from a hetero-connected way (first person versus third person view). But, he fails to point out why consciousness not can be considered as a separate reality. Seperate realities in the way a particulate system has.

So, information is identified by the meaningfullness to us. So, information and meaning are totally different concepts.Can you explain me this? Maybe a definition of 'information' and of 'meaning' would help.

Which Jesus are you talking about? If there is a one-to-one relationship I've to have the same person in mind I guess.Okay, I got it. A DNA 'word' is a human imposed concept, genes are a concept, proteins are a concept. Inapproriate comparision, natural selection has to do with the 'concepts' genes and proteins. Genes and proteins as meanings?

Are you saying that information exists, even without an interpreter? You can divide information in meaningfull information and information without meaning. Maybe it's nice to differ 'probability or embarrassment' versus 'accordancy with reality'. The reason why I shouldn't opt for the latter is that it hollows out the concept of information. There is no way to capture 'structure' within such a definition. Do you think there exists something like 'structure'?

So, information as ordinary data arrays, but called information in the appearance of an interpreter. The first option takes a particular point of view into account, it assumes a possibility to embarras the spectator. In compression techniques information is defined according prediction chance. A picture with random black and white spots contains the greatest amount of information. That's a better suggestion.

---

If the aim with your analogy was to stress the difference between 'meaning' and 'information' like you defined them, then I want to suggest to leave it by this.If the aim with you analogy was to stress the similarity between 'information' in alphabet and DNA soup, then you've to explain why the structure involved is a product of interpreted information in both cases.

Structure
DNA is a sort of data stack, okay. But it's data with structure and so it's not data an sich. Arrangements of matter is matter that's structured, not matter an sich. To say that it's pure matter, or that in truth everything is just matter isn't addressing the problem. There is a difference between unorganized data and organized data.Hierarchy and recursivity
Systems have a sort of hierarchy. There are operators that aren't functioning on the lower or the upper levels. Here our human viewpoint can decieve us, because we can't see every level at once.
Structure from which parts can reused as sub-structures are recursive, a typical example is human language. That's something that every intellect would notice, don't you think so?Holism
And what I already mentioned, summed up in the popular phrase: "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".Self-organization
Of course, organized data doesn't will organize spontaneously. There has to be at least some self-organizing organism behind it. Maybe you think I want to let you say that there have to be ID because of the observed hierarchy. But, that's a little bit too fast. First we've to examine how the mechanism of self-organization did become part of our universe.

---

The existence of information
What I want to stress is that there is structure and self-organizing even without human observers. I regard self-organizing as a kind of probing, a primitive kind of observing. To assign the term information to that particular data set is a small step by then.

Self-organization -> probing -> observing -> interpreting -> information

​

Links:
It's a scientif challenge: "Towards a theory of everything?" pdf html

It's not my point to prove ID.It was only to disprove the reasoning:

no information with no human perception

ID is exclusively related with information
-> so, no ID without human perception

​

---

​

Yaro writes:

​

What would you consider unorganized data? ... Could you show an example of disorganized data?

Random data. Radioactive decay.

​

Everything in this universe is potential data, and can be viewd as organized in some context.

Everything is usable as data. Our organization of it isn't just a random process. It's reflecting the organization of the structures in the outward world itself.

​

I see nothing intrinsicaly special about DNA. Could you explain further?

It's self-organizing, DNA is indeed intrinsically special.

Self-organization -> probing -> observing -> interpreting -> information

​

Yes, but recursivity does not necessitate intellect. For example, if you go out to arizona you see these crazy rock formations. Alot of them are incredibly complex structures.
...
So you see, the stone relied on simpler sub-structures, to produce even more comples structures. Yet this process involved no intelect.

I was in Uyuni and saw this arbol de piedra (the photo isn't mine by the way). They are indeed incredible. But I don't see the recursivity you mentioned, the stone doesn't show hierarchy.

​

---

​

It seems you and I are thinking the same about being able to prove or disprove ID in the context of information. Let us argue about the way information is part of our universe (not about the Originator).

​

I want to stress that if I'm speaking about organized it doesn't have to mean that there is a Organizer, if I'm speaking about information it doesn't have to mean that there is a Perciever, if I'm speaking about structure it doesn't have to mean that there is Somebody 'Who did it'.

​

---

​

I don't know if you will understand this, but you're treating human perception as something special. I can see it as a product of a self-organizing process that exists in the universe. It's an extension of the same process that accounts for crystal formation.. Although, if it is like that, then we've to explain why there occur such phase-shifts like the ability of reasoning and the appearance of self-awareness.

The goal is to make others happy, others, also God.

The outcome, the phenotype, the abstract form, does matter too. Natural selection doesn't select on the genome directly. And natural selection? And humans? What's so special about a decision making process?

---

The big question is: How does self-organization arise? (Even for crystal formation.)

To be happy is fun.Why?Because it's the same (to be happy = fun).Why?The proposition (x=x)=true is a valid reasoning.Why?Because I feel happy with using this kind of reasoning.Why?Because it's kind of fun.Why?(see above)

---

The ability to have always a next question, doesn't lead to no answer at all. There is an answer, a circular one. And maybe the only possibility to become sure is revelation.

The organisation doesn't exist only as a human perception. The 'perceptor' here is nature itself. It's data processing resulting in something nature can percieve. For example: time is typical something that human experience, but it's also something inherently existing in the real world even without us. DNA does even have semantics, not any sequence is valid, just as human writings.