Re: [asa] Information and knowledge

One thing that is getting a little lost in all this specific discussion of
Shannon: how much does Dembski's version of ID actually rely on Shannon? I
suggested that strong ID posits an ontology of information, and I think
that's a fair characterization. But then we went off on exactly what
Shannon himself meant or didn't mean and how his theories can or can't
properly be extended. Is strong ID's concept of information only all about
Shannon?

On 4/14/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Iain Strachan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > So I would argue that digital IS necessary for the conservation of
> > genetic messages.
>
> I would agree with that. The problem is that genetic messages are not
> fully conserved. So, this is an unnecessary requirement. Again the
> genetic mechanism is sufficient to account for the amount of
> conservation that occurs in evolution but it is not necessary. Or put
> it another way, conservation in an evolutionary context is not
> completely analogous to that in the physics context. In fact, gene
> silencing suggests that information conservation in the genome
> however defined is not absolute.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 14 16:28:29 2007