Creation of information

[Nils]

The data is that all bacteria after a certain time have the mutation. The meaning, the information is "If a bacterium of type A gets a mutation in position P, this mutation is beneficial".

But again back to the point I was making, a beneficial mutation is not the same thing as new information.

A beneficial mutation is not the same thing as new information, but the message that a specific mutation is beneficial is a new piece of information (new if the receiver of the information didn't know this before).
If you don't think that this is a piece of information, please explain why (ie what is your point?)

Genetic replication is a function of existing genetic code.
Genetic replication allows for a limited amount of variation to occur within the existing genetic code.

However genetic replication is incapable of creating new functionality or new information (ie... meaningful non-random structure and organization).
It is only able to replicate existing functionality that is already inherent to the existing genetic code.

So getting back to the discussion in the thread.
If genetic replication is a function of existing information in the genetic code.
The question at hand is...
What is the source of the genetic code that enables the genetic replication?

The answer is...
Whatever, created the genetic code that enables the replication in the first place.
And the only known causal agent that has been observed to be capable of producing code of any type is intelligence.

Random mutation and natural selection have most often been observed to propagate deletions of genetic code.
But to the best of my knowledge, random mutation and natural selection have never been observed to generate new information (ie... meaningful non-random structure and organization) or new code and new functionality.

Random mutation and natural selection are only able to replicate preexisting genetic code and introduce limited random (not meaningful, organized or structured) variation within a limited scope.

Sorry, DB, you are not answering my question about information. You state a lot of things that I don't think are correct but we have to clear the simple things before continuing to the more complex.

To clarify, if I ask you what weather it's outside and you answer that it's raining I get a piece of information. It resolves my uncertainty about the weather. If the probability is 1 in 4 that it rains the information is log2 (4/1) =2 bits. If I ask if there is a full moon today the information is log2(28/1) which is about 5 bits. If I ask if a mutation at a specific position in the genetic code is beneficial and the probability that it is beneficial is 1 in 128 the information in the message "it is beneficial" is log2 (128/1)= 7 bits.

Agree so far?

Nils

[DBowling]

The data is that all bacteria after a certain time have the mutation. The meaning, the information is "If a bacterium of type A gets a mutation in position P, this mutation is beneficial".

But again back to the point I was making, a beneficial mutation is not the same thing as new information.

A beneficial mutation is not the same thing as new information, but the message that a specific mutation is beneficial is a new piece of information (new if the receiver of the information didn't know this before).
If you don't think that this is a piece of information, please explain why (ie what is your point?)

Genetic replication is a function of existing genetic code.
Genetic replication allows for a limited amount of variation to occur within the existing genetic code.

However genetic replication is incapable of creating new functionality or new information (ie... meaningful non-random structure and organization).
It is only able to replicate existing functionality that is already inherent to the existing genetic code.

So getting back to the discussion in the thread.
If genetic replication is a function of existing information in the genetic code.
The question at hand is...
What is the source of the genetic code that enables the genetic replication?

The answer is...
Whatever, created the genetic code that enables the replication in the first place.
And the only known causal agent that has been observed to be capable of producing code of any type is intelligence.

Random mutation and natural selection have most often been observed to propagate deletions of genetic code.
But to the best of my knowledge, random mutation and natural selection have never been observed to generate new information (ie... meaningful non-random structure and organization) or new code and new functionality.

Random mutation and natural selection are only able to replicate preexisting genetic code and introduce limited random (not meaningful, organized or structured) variation within a limited scope.

Sorry, DB, you are not answering my question about information.

I was trying to answer your question... but let me try again.
Here is the quote I was responding to...

The mutation apparently was beneficial. Now we have a new piece of information: If a bacterium of type A gets a mutation in position P, this mutation is beneficial. This information was generated by a random mutation and natural selection.

There are three inaccuracies in the assertion you make here...
1. You equate "beneficial mutation" with "new information"
This is factually incorrect because most "beneficial mutations" involve deletions in the genetic code, not "new information".
2. The definition of "information" precludes random processes as a causal agent.
By definition any random process is incapable of generating "information" (ie... meaningful non-random structure and organization).
3. Random mutation does not generate information in the genetic code.
Information in the genetic code is generated by genetic replication. And genetic replication is a function of of the existing genetic code.
So random mutation does not produce any information. It is the genetic code that replicates itself and generates information.

[Nils]

But again back to the point I was making, a beneficial mutation is not the same thing as new information.

A beneficial mutation is not the same thing as new information, but the message that a specific mutation is beneficial is a new piece of information (new if the receiver of the information didn't know this before).
If you don't think that this is a piece of information, please explain why (ie what is your point?)

Genetic replication is a function of existing genetic code.
Genetic replication allows for a limited amount of variation to occur within the existing genetic code.

However genetic replication is incapable of creating new functionality or new information (ie... meaningful non-random structure and organization).
It is only able to replicate existing functionality that is already inherent to the existing genetic code.

So getting back to the discussion in the thread.
If genetic replication is a function of existing information in the genetic code.
The question at hand is...
What is the source of the genetic code that enables the genetic replication?

The answer is...
Whatever, created the genetic code that enables the replication in the first place.
And the only known causal agent that has been observed to be capable of producing code of any type is intelligence.

Random mutation and natural selection have most often been observed to propagate deletions of genetic code.
But to the best of my knowledge, random mutation and natural selection have never been observed to generate new information (ie... meaningful non-random structure and organization) or new code and new functionality.

Random mutation and natural selection are only able to replicate preexisting genetic code and introduce limited random (not meaningful, organized or structured) variation within a limited scope.

Sorry, DB, you are not answering my question about information.

I was trying to answer your question... but let me try again.
Here is the quote I was responding to...

The mutation apparently was beneficial. Now we have a new piece of information: If a bacterium of type A gets a mutation in position P, this mutation is beneficial. This information was generated by a random mutation and natural selection.

There are three inaccuracies in the assertion you make here...
1. You equate "beneficial mutation" with "new information"
This is factually incorrect because most "beneficial mutations" involve deletions in the genetic code, not "new information".
2. The definition of "information" precludes random processes as a causal agent.
By definition any random process is incapable of generating "information" (ie... meaningful non-random structure and organization).
3. Random mutation does not generate information in the genetic code.
Information in the genetic code is generated by genetic replication. And genetic replication is a function of of the existing genetic code.
So random mutation does not produce any information. It is the genetic code that replicates itself and generates information.

But didn't you read the rest of my post?
I repeat (including numbering):

"You state a lot of things that I don't think are correct but we have to clear the simple things before continuing to the more complex.

To clarify,
(1) if I ask you what weather it's outside and you answer that it's raining I get a piece of information. It resolves my uncertainty about the weather. If the probability is 1 in 4 that it rains the information is log2 (4/1) =2 bits.
(2) If I ask if there is a full moon today the information is log2(28/1) which is about 5 bits.
(3) If I ask if a mutation in a specific position of the genetic code is beneficial and the probability that it is beneficial is 1 in 128 the information in the message "it is beneficial" is log2 (128/1)= 7 bits. "

This is still valid. Do you agree with (1), with (2), and with (3)?

How can we discuss your statements if we don't agree on the basics.

Nils

[PaulSacramento]

Wow.

So, any examples of information coming from a random mutation in nature?

[Philip]

Paul: Wow.

So, any examples of information coming from a random mutation in nature?

No, but there are plenty examples of FANTASIES of such!

[DBowling]

I was trying to answer your question... but let me try again.
Here is the quote I was responding to...

The mutation apparently was beneficial. Now we have a new piece of information: If a bacterium of type A gets a mutation in position P, this mutation is beneficial. This information was generated by a random mutation and natural selection.

There are three inaccuracies in the assertion you make here...
1. You equate "beneficial mutation" with "new information"
This is factually incorrect because most "beneficial mutations" involve deletions in the genetic code, not "new information".
2. The definition of "information" precludes random processes as a causal agent.
By definition any random process is incapable of generating "information" (ie... meaningful non-random structure and organization).
3. Random mutation does not generate information in the genetic code.
Information in the genetic code is generated by genetic replication. And genetic replication is a function of of the existing genetic code.
So random mutation does not produce any information. It is the genetic code that replicates itself and generates information.

But didn't you read the rest of my post?
I repeat (including numbering):

"You state a lot of things that I don't think are correct but we have to clear the simple things before continuing to the more complex.

To clarify,
(1) if I ask you what weather it's outside and you answer that it's raining I get a piece of information.

If I answer...
"It is raining outside."
I have given you information.
I have given you a string of alphabetical symbols that have "meaningful non-random structure and organization"

If I answer...
"arigv;dfinzdfjqahkfaivy"
I have given you data but I have not given you information.
I have given you a string of characters, but they are not meaningful, they are random, and they do not have structure and organization.

It resolves my uncertainty about the weather.

Since my first answer contains information it can resolve your uncertainty about the weather.
Since my second answer does not contain information it does not resolve your uncertainty about the weather.

(2) If I ask if there is a full moon today the information is log2(28/1) which is about 5 bits.

If I answer...
"There is not a full moon outside.
I have given you information.
I have given you a string of alphabetical symbols that have "meaningful non-random structure and organization"

If I answer...
"vndo;swfvndfwv;fsndqwsd"
I have given you data but I have not given you information.
I have given you a string of characters, but they are not meaningful, they are random, and they do not have structure and organization.

Since my first answer contains information it can resolve your uncertainty about the moon.
Since my second answer does not contain information it does not resolve your uncertainty about the moon.

(3) If I ask if a mutation in a specific position of the genetic code is beneficial and the probability that it is beneficial is 1 in 128 the information in the message "it is beneficial" is log2 (128/1)= 7 bits. "

If I answer...
"Yes, that specific mutation is beneficial"
I have given you information.
I have given you a string of alphabetical symbols that have "meaningful non-random structure and organization"

If I answer...
"akeah.lgsh.ag;a.mgkrgrekg"
I have given you data but I have not given you information.
I have given you a string of characters, but they are not meaningful, they are random, and they do not have structure and organization.

Since my first answer contains information it can resolve your uncertainty about a particular mutation.
Since my second answer does not contain information it does not resolve your uncertainty about a particular mutation.

[Nils]

Paul and Philip,
random mutations give no information. It is random mutations + natural selection that do the job. You should know.
Same as everyday trial and error. Trial is more and less random. Error is the feed back, a selection mechanism.
Nils

[Byblos]

To clarify,
(1) if I ask you what weather it's outside and you answer that it's raining I get a piece of information.

If I answer...
"It is raining outside."
I have given you information.
I have given you a string of alphabetical symbols that have "meaningful non-random structure and organization"

If I answer...
"arigv;dfinzdfjqahkfaivy"
I have given you data but I have not given you information.
I have given you a string of characters, but they are not meaningful, they are random, and they do not have structure and organization.

You all are circling around the central point of this whole discussion but not addressing it directly.

How is information defined and who defines it as such?

[PaulSacramento]

Paul and Philip,
random mutations give no information. It is random mutations + natural selection that do the job. You should know.
Same as everyday trial and error. Trial is more and less random. Error is the feed back, a selection mechanism.
Nils

What drives natural selection? how does "nature select" ?

[Philip]

Byblos: You all are circling around the central point of this whole discussion but not addressing it directly.

How is information defined and who defines it as such?

Exactly! This is at the core of my point. Nils acts as if random mutations plus natural selection can produce useful information - but useful to WHAT, exactly? Processed and utilized by WHAT???

Nils: Paul and Philip, random mutations give no information. It is random mutations + natural selection that do the job. You should know. Same as everyday trial and error.

No, no and NO!!! It is unbelievable that you do not see your mistake. Everyday trial and error produces results by intelligent beings - beings that A) initiated some type of investigative efforts (whether simple or complex, designed or merely observed) and B) subsequently ponders the results of those successful or unsuccessful trials. And so an intelligent entity can then analyze and build upon whatever feedback the results teach it. But blind nature does not see, know of, or interpret any data, nor does it initiate or design trials. Nils, you are attempting to assert results are possible that only an intelligence can seek or perceive!

[DBowling]

To clarify,
(1) if I ask you what weather it's outside and you answer that it's raining I get a piece of information.

If I answer...
"It is raining outside."
I have given you information.
I have given you a string of alphabetical symbols that have "meaningful non-random structure and organization"

If I answer...
"arigv;dfinzdfjqahkfaivy"
I have given you data but I have not given you information.
I have given you a string of characters, but they are not meaningful, they are random, and they do not have structure and organization.

You all are circling around the central point of this whole discussion but not addressing it directly.

How is information defined and who defines it as such?

I think I have directly addressed the central point in my posts.
a. My operating definition of information is "data with meaningful non-random structure and organization".
b. The only observed causal agent (definer and creator) of information is intelligence.

[Byblos]

To clarify,
(1) if I ask you what weather it's outside and you answer that it's raining I get a piece of information.

If I answer...
"It is raining outside."
I have given you information.
I have given you a string of alphabetical symbols that have "meaningful non-random structure and organization"

If I answer...
"arigv;dfinzdfjqahkfaivy"
I have given you data but I have not given you information.
I have given you a string of characters, but they are not meaningful, they are random, and they do not have structure and organization.

You all are circling around the central point of this whole discussion but not addressing it directly.

How is information defined and who defines it as such?

I think I have directly addressed the central point in my posts.
a. My operating definition of information is "data with meaningful non-random structure and organization".
b. The only observed causal agent (definer and creator) of information is intelligence.

Agreed.

IMO (and this is just an opinion), information definition is more fundamental than any origin talk. Bottom line is, without intelligence to identify data as information, data will interminably remain just that, a string of meaningless patterns, even if some random sections spell out Webster's dictionary. Nils' algorithm output of LRRL is as meaningless as as any other random output unless an intelligence interprets it as information relating to a possible path to be traversed.

[Nils]

To clarify,
(1) if I ask you what weather it's outside and you answer that it's raining I get a piece of information.

If I answer...
"It is raining outside."
I have given you information.
I have given you a string of alphabetical symbols that have "meaningful non-random structure and organization"

If I answer...
"arigv;dfinzdfjqahkfaivy"
I have given you data but I have not given you information.
I have given you a string of characters, but they are not meaningful, they are random, and they do not have structure and organization.

You all are circling around the central point of this whole discussion but not addressing it directly.

How is information defined and who defines it as such?

I think I have directly addressed the central point in my posts.
a. My operating definition of information is "data with meaningful non-random structure and organization".

Is this your definition? Nothing about resolution of uncertainty? That the message has to be understandable for the receiver is obvious which also requires that he/it understands the context. Is that what you mean by "meaningful non-random structure and organization"?

b. The only observed causal agent (definer and creator) of information is intelligence.

Is this a definition? It looks like a personal statement, a statement that you repeat again and again. As you should have noted I don't agree and this is what we discuss. What is the thought of repeating your position all the time?
About the definition of information I find it reasonable it should cover natural sciences as astronomy where the "sender" or "generator" isn't an intelligence. It should also cover cases as the sensor of a self driving car sending information to a central controller where the receiver of the information isn't human. And even where the receiver isn't made by humans (biology).
Of course you can use your a special definition of information requiring it to be created by an intelligence but then you b) becomes:
b. The only observed causal agent (definer and creator) of information created by an intelligence is intelligence.

You post #126 I didn't understand.
Nils

[Nils]

Paul and Philip,
random mutations give no information. It is random mutations + natural selection that do the job. You should know.
Same as everyday trial and error. Trial is more and less random. Error is the feed back, a selection mechanism.
Nils

What drives natural selection? how does "nature select" ?

Don't you understand the evolution theory?? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection. If you then have questions I will try to answer.
Nils

[RickD]

Paul and Philip,
random mutations give no information. It is random mutations + natural selection that do the job. You should know.
Same as everyday trial and error. Trial is more and less random. Error is the feed back, a selection mechanism.
Nils

What drives natural selection? how does "nature select" ?

Don't you understand the evolution theory?? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection. If you then have questions I will try to answer.
Nils

Nils,

Sometimes when people ask questions, they're not asking because they don't already know the answers. Sometimes they ask questions, because they want YOU to think about the answers.