56 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

WHAT IS AN INTELLIGENT CODE?

I an not a computer scientist. One of my sons is with a major in Computer Science and a minor in physics. My background is in History, Philosophy and Comparative Religion. I have had a life long interest in Science

Three areas are the subject of human search for understanding and knowledge.

1. Is there a God? Theology, Philosophy, Atheism, etc.
2. How does the physical world work? Science
3. Who am I and why do I exist?

Some things overlap all three of these areas and questions related to all three of these areas relate to intelligent codes. I am sure we will touch on all of them in our discussion.

DNA
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally do so because my view is that no code occurs only naturally.

[Lister]

You started a new thread! Hah! Good. I have to try and avoid restating everything that I’ve said before… Err that’s going to be tough!

• DNA occurs naturally and appears to be a code based on humans understanding of codes.
• As far as humans understand all codes other than DNA are manmade. All codes have an intelligent designer.
• As DNA appears to be a code humans assume that it must have been intelligently designed.
• As DNA is natural and intelligently designed it must be proof of a creator beyond human knowledge and understanding.
• DNA can even store information so it must have been intelligently designed!
• And similar to our understanding that the earth is the center of the universe, we come to a conclusion.

DNA may be proof of an intelligent designer but in this world of science it’s too subjective to move beyond speculation. Is there a natural code out there that’s more complex than DNA? Will we ever be able to prove DNA arose naturally without aid? You can come to a conclusion if you wish but you’re still left with those questions unanswered.

We just don’t know. Does anyone know of a natural code like DNA with evidence that it wasn’t created?

[nightlight]

DNA
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally do so because my view is that no code occurs only naturally.

(1) is common knowledge
(2) is made up and its statements are meaningless or false:

• scientifically meaningless: present natural science doesn't say anything about 'conscious mind', it is not part of its models. What the first clause is trying to say, albeit clumsily/manipulatively, is "All codes are created by "intelligent process" which is a plausible statement.
  
• false: in natural science, humans are a natural process, humans can produce code, hence according to science, natural processes can create coded information

(3) doesn't follow from (1) and (2) as it claims. Namely:

Granting momentarily premise (2) (although it is false) => just because, according to (2), present science doesn't know any other natural process than human which can create code, it doesn't follow there aren't any other such processes as (3) "deduces" from (2). Namely natural science doesn't claim it knows everything there is, or even that what is within its reach is necessarily correct. Anything science says is provisional (potentially falsifiable). NOTE: when you hear declaration "science is settled", first, watch your wallet, then flip whatever they're talking about upside down, since they are trying to manipulate you and make you believe something that is at best dubious (but profitable to those selling it to you).

Without granting the false premise (2) - in natural science, any general computing system can create code (my PC is doing it as I am typing, e.g. producing ASCII code). Since computer you are typing on is a natural process (within models of natural science), natural processes, humans and many other processes can and do create code.

Note also that within natural science, cellular biochemical networks are computers as well, of distributed self-programming kind like brain (they are 'intelligent networks'; see post "Biochemical networks & their algorithms" for description & references). Hence, it's not overly surprising (to natural science) that these computers, too, can create code (the DNA code).

Of course, the major open question in natural science is how did these computers (cellular biochemical networks) arise from atoms or simple molecules. Another open question is how did such systems (simpler live systems, such as cells) bootstrap their computational capacity and complexity from cells to humans. The neo-Darwinian scheme (random mutation+natural selection) is algorithmically much too simple minded and can only handwave on the subject. Far more intelligent algorithms are needed to explain the observations than the 'random trial and error' of neo-Darwinian dogma (that's the dumbest possible algorithm a programmer, who is a natural process, too, would come up with to solve the unimaginably large search problem). Curiously, neo-Darwinainas often claim "science is settled" about their dogma, which means they know they're selling you BS. See the above link for references on more plausible and more promising aproaches (mainly via complexity science -- intelligent networks all way down, underlying presently known physical laws which are only a coarse grained statistical approximations of deeper, far more intelligent reality, e.g. see Stephen Wolfram's NKS toy models of that type).

Edited by nightlight, 07 February 2013 - 03:48 AM.

[platypus]

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

This is false as mutations + natural selection do this all the time. Also works inside computers (in genetic algos).

[nightlight]

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

This is false as mutations + natural selection do this all the time. Also works inside computers (in genetic algos).

That explanation is like "explaining" how humans are created out of random collisions of atoms and molecules, by saying: it's very simple -- you first take her panties off, then your pants off, then... and then wait nine months.

Namely, you forgot to include the main ingredient of the recipe, the heavy lifter, which is the "live organism" (with its DNA code) + (whatever) -> modified DNA code. How did the code forming live organism come out from aimless, random collisions of atoms and simple molecules, or how did simpler organisms transmute into complex organisms following some more of these aimless collisions of those same atoms and molecules, are unsolved problems, despite various 'just so' stories you may have heard claiming to explain it.

With genetic algorithms, you also need computer and humans who invent, design and make those, plus a special kind of computer programs (again invented, designed and created by humans), and only then "genetic algorithm" + (the mentioned heavy lifters) will jointly produce "code" (some "improvement" of the pattern being varied, as chosen by human and programmed into the algorithm).

Hence, the "mutation+natural selection" offered as the explanation for live organisms and their evolution is like giving credit for Mona Lisa to a fly sitting on Leonardo's shoulder (put one on your shoulder, see how it works).

Edited by nightlight, 07 February 2013 - 01:51 PM.

[platypus]

I gave an example of a natural process that creates coded information, falsifying claim 2 (or the latter half of it at least). BTW genetic algos can create innovative designs that human designers are often not able to do, so in this case evolution trumps conscious design by humans.

[nightlight]

I gave an example of a natural process that creates coded information, falsifying claim 2 (or the latter half of it at least).

You only "gave" (random) "mutation+natural selection" which is a mechism that is neither necessary nor sufficient natural process for the task (e.g. GM organisms which use designed DNA modification rather than random mutation/RM, hence RM is not necessary). The suggested mechansim (RM+NS) also assumes quite a bit of intelligent infrastructure (DNA codes+cellular & organism biochemical networks) already present to have any effect or be meaningfull at all.

Hence, that explanation is like attributing Mona Lisa painting to a button on Leonardo's shirt he wore while painting it, overlooking Leonardo himself. The button is neither necessary nor sufficient for him painting Mona Lisa, plus it assumes buttons & shirt manufacturing infrastructure, also not credited by the "explanation" of the painting of Mona Lisa.

BTW genetic algos can create innovative designs that human designers are often not able to do, so in this case evolution trumps conscious design by humans.

To run artificial GA code, you need massive intelligent infrastructure & expertise, such as computer technology and programming. Similarly, the "natural" GA in the seting of a reproduction, requires massive intelligent biochemical infrastructure to work, or even merely to be meaningful. Hence, this "explanation" has the same type of problem as the first one RM+NS, with the same Mona Lisa analogy applicable.

As to getting better solutions than humans, your calculator can beat you in multiplying 8 digits numbers, too. So what? It's a non sequitur.

[platypus]

Point 2) has been refuted. There's no proof given that "all codes are created by a conscious mind".

[nightlight]

Point 2) has been refuted. There's no proof given that "all codes are created by a conscious mind".

The top post didn't really need to be refuted since it is already logically and semantically an incoherent gibberish all by itself (as explained in my reply to it). The OP needs to polish it up (quite a bit), or at least cite accurately a good ID writer, before presenting it publicly again.

That's a pitty, since a well presented ID position, explaining life and evolution via some underlying intelligence (whatever its nature e.g. a still unknown intelligent process, a deeper level of our present physical laws) is far more plausible explanation than the neo-Darwinian (RM+NS) just-so stories and handwaving, which everyone ought to outgrow by the time they're out of high school, at the latest.

Edited by nightlight, 07 February 2013 - 06:06 PM.

[platypus]

That's a pitty, since a well presented ID position, explaining life and evolution via some underlying intelligence (whatever its nature e.g. a still unknown intelligent process, a deeper level of our present physical laws) is far more plausible explanation than the neo-Darwinian (RM+NS) just-so stories and handwaving, which everyone ought to outgrow by the time they're out of high school, at the latest.

What "underlying intelligence" are you talking about? Are you advocating pseudo-Christian BS?

[shadowhawk]

Point 2) has been refuted. There's no proof given that "all codes are created by a conscious mind".

The top post didn't really need to be refuted since it is already logically and semantically an incoherent gibberish all by itself (as explained in my reply to it). The OP needs to polish it up (quite a bit), or at least cite accurately a good ID writer, before presenting it publicly again.

That's a pitty, since a well presented ID position, explaining life and evolution via some underlying intelligence (whatever its nature e.g. a still unknown intelligent process, a deeper level of our present physical laws) is far more plausible explanation than the neo-Darwinian (RM+NS) just-so stories and handwaving, which everyone ought to outgrow by the time they're out of high school, at the latest.

Interesting with a bit of ad hominem added in. I asked what is an intelligent code? Are we saying there is no intelligent code? There is an Intelligence Code? Non intelligent randomness produced Intelligent Code? So what is it? We will get to all the other issues soon. I have chosen this topic in response to Listers request that I choose something outside my expertise. This will be fun.. Nightlight welcome. Do you have a background in Codes?

[shadowhawk]

You started a new thread! Hah! Good. I have to try and avoid restating everything that I’ve said before… Err that’s going to be tough!

• DNA occurs naturally and appears to be a code based on humans understanding of codes.
  
• As far as humans understand all codes other than DNA are manmade. All codes have an intelligent designer.
  
• As DNA appears to be a code humans assume that it must have been intelligently designed.
  
• As DNA is natural and intelligently designed it must be proof of a creator beyond human knowledge and understanding.
  
• DNA can even store information so it must have been intelligently designed!
  
• And similar to our understanding that the earth is the center of the universe, we come to a conclusion.

DNA may be proof of an intelligent designer but in this world of science it’s too subjective to move beyond speculation. Is there a natural code out there that’s more complex than DNA? Will we ever be able to prove DNA arose naturally without aid? You can come to a conclusion if you wish but you’re still left with those questions unanswered.

We just don’t know. Does anyone know of a natural code like DNA with evidence that it wasn’t created?

I DID! A new thread

The subject of this thread is what is an intelligent code? I noticed you picked up on the DNA issue from the ID topic but I am interested in codes in general and of corse this can include DNA. I thought another topic might have been, what is intelligence but that was to close to ID. All of these issues have religious implications. Night Light seems to have a bit more on the ball than just name calling so this will be fun.

I listed three other issues beside DNA. We could have also asked what is evidence or knowledge? I look forward to the discussion friend.

[Lister]

I no smart nuff understand code!

I’m not sure I can stay on the code ball without falling back into the ID conversation. Hopefully someone else can tug at a thread people like me cannot see and unravel a few pages of good content.

[shadowhawk]

I no smart nuff understand code!

I’m not sure I can stay on the code ball without falling back into the ID conversation. Hopefully someone else can tug at a thread people like me cannot see and unravel a few pages of good content.

It must be hard for some to stay on topic. lets talk about cars...biology...art...hate...religion, all in the same sentence. I used to call it "nuts talking." Not that your off topic difficulty is .

Fun to change subjects i guess. That is why they have topics like, "What is an intelligent code?" You started it. I think this topic has started off nicely. ID is a much wider subject. That subject is whether ID is a proper subject of science or not.

"I no smart nuff understand code!" Sure you can.

Edited by shadowhawk, 09 February 2013 - 12:22 AM.

[Lister]

I no smart nuff understand code!

I’m not sure I can stay on the code ball without falling back into the ID conversation. Hopefully someone else can tug at a thread people like me cannot see and unravel a few pages of good content.

It must be hard for some to stay on topic. lets talk about cars...biology...art...hate...religion, all in the same sentence. I used to call it "nuts talking." Not that your off topic difficulty is ... Fun to change subjects i guess. That is why they have topics like, "What is an intelligent code? I think it has started off nicely. ID is a much wider subject. That subject is whether ID is a proper subject of science or not.

Not trying to make fun; I really do have troubles when the conversation narrows like this.

I may think I’m a smart guy but if I were to attempt to really delve into the specifics of Codes I would have trouble. I’ve always felt that I know a little about a lot and that’s probably true. So on broader issues I can hold my own but when we narrow the conversation I have little to add.

[nightlight]

Interesting with a bit of ad hominem added in.

Sorry, it wasn't meant that way. English isn't my native tongue (it is chronologically my fifth language) and I have a bit of tin ear for the tone conveyed.

... Do you have a background in Codes?

The research side of my work (I do lots more programming than research, though) of the last few years was indeed in the field of codes, and I was lucky to stumble upon two quite interesting discoveries in this pursuit.

The first one solved a four decade old problem, a holy grail in that field, on how to efficiently compute combinatorial (enumerative) code (CC) for a symbol sequence of any size. Conceptually, to encode this entire post in CC, you would create a sorted list of all possible distinct messages of the same length and with the same counts of letters a, b, c,... as this one (running through all possible permutations of given letters). Then the combinatorial code for this message would be its index (position) in this enormous sorted list of permuted messages. The CC problem is how to compute this index (a large integer) for a given message (i.e. without writing down the whole gigantic list of all its distinct permutations) and how to decode the index into the actual message.

It has been known for over four decades that CC is theoretically the most optimal way to encode general sequences of symbols. The only problem was that the abstract CC was computationally intractable, requiring arthimetic precision that was of the size of data being encoded e.g. to encode 1 GB of data, you would need to exactly multiply and divide numbers which are 1GB in size. I found a way described in the paper above, how to do it optimally with only 32 bit precision arithmetic (for problem sizes of practical interest, such as gigabytes of symbols). The last page has a little table comparing performance of the new method (which I named "Quantized Indexing") to the best among the previously known coding algorithms (arithmetic coding).

The more recent one solves a question that no one even knew to be a question, yet the answer turns out to be of greater practical importance than the first one. The paper shows that two large problems, each its own field of research, are under the surface the same problem. These two seemingly unrelated problems are:

a) How to connect a network (of switches) to maximize its throughput (i.e. maximize bisection)
b) Maximize error detecting & correcting capability of an error correcting code (ECC)

The paper shows that, stripped of particular semantics and rephrased in a suitable manner, the underlying abstract mathematical problem is one and the same. A simple translation recipe is then provided (pp. 28-29) for converting optimal solutions from one field to another. The practical relevance of the finding arises from the fact that ECC field is a far more mature than network optimization field, with thousands of known optimal solution. The above translation recipe then allows any of the known optimal EC codes to be converted into an optimal throughput network.

The networks (which I named "Long Hop" networks) obtained via this translation procedure are quite remarkable -- if this was about car engines, these Long Hop networks would be equivalent to a new car engine which, at the same horse powers, gets 2-5 times more miles per gallon than the best current engines, whether manufactured or proposed in literature (the advantage ratio increases with network size).

[shadowhawk]

Very interesting Nightlight. Though I am a complete armature in this field it is obvious you are not. I admire what you are doing. My son who is in a related field as you is still in school and we also have fascinating exchanges such as this. You definitely will have something intelligent to say about codes and I have some questions regarding your first response to me in this thread. I have been very busy and will get to them soon. Thanks.

[shadowhawk]

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:25 PM

View Postshadowhawk, on 06 February 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:
“DNA
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally do so because my view is that no code occurs only naturally.”
.................................................................................................................................................

nightlight (1) is common knowledge
(2) is made up and its statements are meaningless or false:

scientifically meaningless: present natural science doesn't say anything about 'conscious mind', it is not part of its models. What the first clause is trying to say, albeit clumsily/manipulatively, is "All codes are created by "intelligent process" which is a plausible statement.

false: in natural science, humans are a natural process, humans can produce code, hence according to science, natural processes can create coded information

A human being has a conscious mind. Are you having a problem with there being such a thing as “consciousness?” Do you believe humans are conscious? Is the problem with “naturalism?” How do you know humans are only a natural process? Is Naturalism required for science?

At any case since humans have minds and create codes premise two stands. That is exactly what I said.

nigtlight (3) doesn't follow from (1) and (2) as it claims. Namely:

Granting momentarily premise (2) (although it is false) => just because, according to (2), present science doesn't know any other natural process than human which can create code, it doesn't follow there aren't any other such processes as (3) "deduces" from (2). Namely natural science doesn't claim it knows everything there is, or even that what is within its reach is necessarily correct. Anything science says is provisional (potentially falsifiable). NOTE: when you hear declaration "science is settled", first, watch your wallet, then flip whatever they're talking about upside down, since they are trying to manipulate you and make you believe something that is at best dubious (but profitable to those selling it to you).

Without granting the false premise (2) - in natural science, any general computing system can create code (my PC is doing it as I am typing, e.g. producing ASCII code). Since computer you are typing on is a natural process (within models of natural science), natural processes, humans and many other processes can and do create code.

This is an argument from silence. Science does not say it but someday it will. Therefore, randomness and mindless processes can create codes! You haven’t shown that even the human mind came about from a totally random process. This is naturalism not science. Again premise two is not false. Name a non intelligent process that produces code.

nightlight: Note also that within natural science, cellular biochemical networks are computers as well, of distributed self-programming kind like brain (they are 'intelligent networks'; see post "Biochemical networks & their algorithms" for description & references). Hence, it's not overly surprising (to natural science) that these computers, too, can create code (the DNA code).

I agree there are cellular biochemical networks that are computers in that they are programs or codes. They are intelligent. My third premise be stated, (3) DNA was developed by an intelligence.” This would fit the subject of the thread, as stated, better. With your comments on “randomness.” earlier perhaps this fits better. Give me an example of ‘self programing,” code that is truly random.

nightlight: Of course, the major open question in natural science is how did these computers (cellular biochemical networks) arise from atoms or simple molecules. Another open question is how did such systems (simpler live systems, such as cells) bootstrap their computational capacity and complexity from cells to humans. The neo-Darwinian scheme (random mutation+natural selection) is algorithmically much too simple minded and can only handwave on the subject. Far more intelligent algorithms are needed to explain the observations than the 'random trial and error' of neo-Darwinian dogma (that's the dumbest possible algorithm a programmer, who is a natural process, too, would come up with to solve the unimaginably large search problem). Curiously, neo-Darwinainas often claim "science is settled" about their dogma, which means they know they're selling you BS. See the above link for references on more plausible and more promising aproaches (mainly via complexity science -- intelligent networks all way down, underlying presently known physical laws which are only a coarse grained statistical approximations of deeper, far more intelligent reality, e.g. see Stephen Wolfram's NKS toy models of that type).

Agreed, this is a major question of Science. Science is a [process not a position such as naturalism. We almost agree. Let me repeat my issue which you did not address.:

If you can, provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally do so because my view is that no code occurs only naturally. Your above statement is excellent and is the heart if the matter. Without God or some other Intelligence it seems you are left not in science but with philosophy and faith in naturalism, I think your faith is in naturalism.

Edited by shadowhawk, 14 February 2013 - 10:48 PM.

[N.T.M.]

To the OP: You've got to be careful with those syllogisms. While they're undoubtedly structured logically, their premises have to be correct, and that's simply not the case here.

[shadowhawk]

CODE INFORMATION IN DNA


HOW INFORMATION CAN CODE IN DNA

[johnross47]

To the OP: You've got to be careful with those syllogisms. While they're undoubtedly structured logically, their premises have to be correct, and that's simply not the case here.

Absolutely! GIGO still applies even if the expression is old hat. The discussion of this nonsense is completely pointless. You might as well debate

1)DNA is a massively complex molecule.
2)Massively complex molecules are beyond human understanding.
3)therefore god did it.

The premises are either trivial or unsupported and the conclusion contains a term not in the premises and therefore cannot logically follow.

0% as usual.

[shadowhawk]

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally do so because my view is that no code occurs only naturally.

[shadowhawk]

To the OP: You've got to be careful with those syllogisms. While they're undoubtedly structured logically, their premises have to be correct, and that's simply not the case here.

Absolutely! GIGO still applies even if the expression is old hat. The discussion of this nonsense is completely pointless. You might as well debate

1)DNA is a massively complex molecule.
2)Massively complex molecules are beyond human understanding.
3)therefore god did it.

The premises are either trivial or unsupported and the conclusion contains a term not in the premises and therefore cannot logically follow.

0% as usual.

Nonsense

[Lister]

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally do so because my view is that no code occurs only naturally.

Shadow you have to properly define Code and Language in a way that eliminates almost all subjectivity. At this point in time I don’t think you or anyone can do that to a level that we can provide a code/language you would accept.

Is this a Code?

I live at the coast, I beach comb quite a bit and the waves do indeed sort out shells and bits of rock and other objects by size and shape. These sorted objects appear in distinct patterns as you walk along these patterns become evident.

A case in point, at some point many years ago a huge wall was made at the ocean by dumping marl boulders on the only natural out cropping of rock on the NC coast. This created an environment where small objects were ground up by wave action and distributed along the beach. At some point a few truck loads of bricks was dumped at that same place and the ocean proceeded to grind up these bricks and distribute them along the beach as to shape and size. The distribution of these brick pieces can be charted, larger pieces appear first from the larger marl boulder wall and with smaller pieces being distributed further and further away but it is much more complex than just size distribution.

They are sorted by shape as well, as you walk along various shapes of brick fragments are distributed in groups as well as by size. This occurs with fragments of everything from shells to sand grains but the bricks were especially interesting due to the shape distribution, there were areas of brick fragments shaped like spindles, spheres, various odd shapes but each shape was found with other similarly sized and shaped fragments. At on point along the beach the fragments started to tend toward a valentines day shaped heart and there in on small section was dozens of perfectly heart shaped fragments all in the same small place and then the shapes began to trend toward another random shape and so on down the beach.

Now the heart shaped fragments were the result of wave action of several different types and to us seemed to be designed but in reality it was just a record of the wave action acting of brick fragments. The mind that decided the shapes were heart shaped was human, the evident sorting by shape and size was real but the idea that it had some reason was human.

http://www.sciencefo...logous-to-code/

They do go into this issue rather deep in that discussion; worth a read Shadow.

A code is a symbol or group of symbols that signifies an abstract idea or thought. Written language is visual code for spoken, and spoken language is aural code for ideas such as "I love you" or "please pass the salt". But the DNA molecule doesn't mean anything, any more than does the H2SO4 molecule, the CN− anion, or a boulder perched on top of a cliff. None of those things have any abstract meaning; they are physical objects that have a certain structure and energy potential and that behave in certain ways given particular environmental conditions.

[johnross47]

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally do so because my view is that no code occurs only naturally.

Shadow you have to properly define Code and Language in a way that eliminates almost all subjectivity. At this point in time I don’t think you or anyone can do that to a level that we can provide a code/language you would accept.

Is this a Code?

I live at the coast, I beach comb quite a bit and the waves do indeed sort out shells and bits of rock and other objects by size and shape. These sorted objects appear in distinct patterns as you walk along these patterns become evident.

A case in point, at some point many years ago a huge wall was made at the ocean by dumping marl boulders on the only natural out cropping of rock on the NC coast. This created an environment where small objects were ground up by wave action and distributed along the beach. At some point a few truck loads of bricks was dumped at that same place and the ocean proceeded to grind up these bricks and distribute them along the beach as to shape and size. The distribution of these brick pieces can be charted, larger pieces appear first from the larger marl boulder wall and with smaller pieces being distributed further and further away but it is much more complex than just size distribution.

They are sorted by shape as well, as you walk along various shapes of brick fragments are distributed in groups as well as by size. This occurs with fragments of everything from shells to sand grains but the bricks were especially interesting due to the shape distribution, there were areas of brick fragments shaped like spindles, spheres, various odd shapes but each shape was found with other similarly sized and shaped fragments. At on point along the beach the fragments started to tend toward a valentines day shaped heart and there in on small section was dozens of perfectly heart shaped fragments all in the same small place and then the shapes began to trend toward another random shape and so on down the beach.

Now the heart shaped fragments were the result of wave action of several different types and to us seemed to be designed but in reality it was just a record of the wave action acting of brick fragments. The mind that decided the shapes were heart shaped was human, the evident sorting by shape and size was real but the idea that it had some reason was human.

http://www.sciencefo...logous-to-code/

They do go into this issue rather deep in that discussion; worth a read Shadow.

A code is a symbol or group of symbols that signifies an abstract idea or thought. Written language is visual code for spoken, and spoken language is aural code for ideas such as "I love you" or "please pass the salt". But the DNA molecule doesn't mean anything, any more than does the H2SO4 molecule, the CN− anion, or a boulder perched on top of a cliff. None of those things have any abstract meaning; they are physical objects that have a certain structure and energy potential and that behave in certain ways given particular environmental conditions.

I pretty much agree with you on this.The discussion you've referenced above goes to the heart of it. The premises we're asked to consider are actually question begging, as well as nonsense. I like your wave and stone example above. You can see this effect very easily in a a simple experiment. Put two (or more) sizes of ball bearing or smooth pebbles or different kinds of nuts, whatever you have, in a jar. Shake the jar rapidly from side to side back and forth and after a short time the different objects will sort themselves out into distinct layers.

A lot of the confusion here arises from our linguistic laziness. We already had a word, "code" to describe some man made things. We extended the word to include code-like things such as DNA but without considering whether the two sorts were actually identical. The word identity then becomes a meaning identity in the minds of people who don't think too deeply.

Depressing but predictable to discover that once again Shadowhawk is passing off other people's shabby thinking as his own.

Edited by johnross47, 23 February 2013 - 11:17 AM.

[johnross47]

Further the thoughts above. There is a lot of use in other posts above, of words like random and mindless etc. These are not relevant concepts. The universe may be undirected, in the senses that nobody is steering it, and/or that it has no goal or purpose, but that is not the same as being random. Every single particle, atom, molecule in the universe is following the rules that arise from its own nature. There are only 90+ kinds of atoms and most of them are not very common on the scale of the universe. This is no more random than the movement of the waves interacting with pebbles. It can look random because of its massiveness and its massive complexity but at every level it is rule-bound. Water flowing turbulently over rapids look like randomness but it isn't; it's chaotic but chaos has rules and so does the mindless universe.
;

[johnross47]

"A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type."

I googled code and got the result above from Wiki. "Intelligent Code" gave only one result, a code used by the US Mail which doesn't really seem relevant. What is an intelligent code; in what way does it differ from an ordinary vanilla code? Assuming it is not just some new ploy dreamt up by intelligent design believers to sew confusion I would guess that it would have to be able to do something more than just hold/transmit/convert information. What? Perhaps the OP can enlighten us.

[shadowhawk]

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally do so because my view is that no code occurs only naturally.

Shadow you have to properly define Code and Language in a way that eliminates almost all subjectivity. At this point in time I don’t think you or anyone can do that to a level that we can provide a code/language you would accept.

Is this a Code?

I live at the coast, I beach comb quite a bit and the waves do indeed sort out shells and bits of rock and other objects by size and shape. These sorted objects appear in distinct patterns as you walk along these patterns become evident.

A case in point, at some point many years ago a huge wall was made at the ocean by dumping marl boulders on the only natural out cropping of rock on the NC coast. This created an environment where small objects were ground up by wave action and distributed along the beach. At some point a few truck loads of bricks was dumped at that same place and the ocean proceeded to grind up these bricks and distribute them along the beach as to shape and size. The distribution of these brick pieces can be charted, larger pieces appear first from the larger marl boulder wall and with smaller pieces being distributed further and further away but it is much more complex than just size distribution.

They are sorted by shape as well, as you walk along various shapes of brick fragments are distributed in groups as well as by size. This occurs with fragments of everything from shells to sand grains but the bricks were especially interesting due to the shape distribution, there were areas of brick fragments shaped like spindles, spheres, various odd shapes but each shape was found with other similarly sized and shaped fragments. At on point along the beach the fragments started to tend toward a valentines day shaped heart and there in on small section was dozens of perfectly heart shaped fragments all in the same small place and then the shapes began to trend toward another random shape and so on down the beach.

Now the heart shaped fragments were the result of wave action of several different types and to us seemed to be designed but in reality it was just a record of the wave action acting of brick fragments. The mind that decided the shapes were heart shaped was human, the evident sorting by shape and size was real but the idea that it had some reason was human.

http://www.sciencefo...logous-to-code/

They do go into this issue rather deep in that discussion; worth a read Shadow.

A code is a symbol or group of symbols that signifies an abstract idea or thought. Written language is visual code for spoken, and spoken language is aural code for ideas such as "I love you" or "please pass the salt". But the DNA molecule doesn't mean anything, any more than does the H2SO4 molecule, the CN− anion, or a boulder perched on top of a cliff. None of those things have any abstract meaning; they are physical objects that have a certain structure and energy potential and that behave in certain ways given particular environmental conditions.

This is hellpfull. I would add that the medium of the code can be almost anything from flashes of light to stones. The thing that makes them a code is they contain a message which can be intelligently discerned. There is an encoder and decoder.

[Lister]

This is hellpfull. I would add that the medium of the code can be almost anything from flashes of light to stones. The thing that makes them a code is they contain a message which can be intelligently discerned. There is an encoder and decoder.

For there to be an encoder and a decoder said code would have to have meaning. Meaningless things can be incorrectly labeled as codes having meaning and thus having an assumed encoder. We may currently see some things as being codes and having significance but that would likely be based on very weak assumed connections.

This pushing of seemingly complex natural things into the realm of codes really does feel like grasping at straws.

Edited by Lister, 26 February 2013 - 07:51 AM.

[platypus]

For there to be an encoder and a decoder said code would have to have meaning. Meaningless things can be incorrectly labeled as codes having meaning and thus having an assumed encoder. We may currently see some things as being codes and having significance but that would likely be based on very weak assumed connections.

This pushing of seemingly complex natural things into the realm of codes really does feel like grasping at straws.

Spot on. Human brains project patterns everywhere, including places where they don't exist. Case in point: star constellations