Re: [asa] Information and knowledge

* If it's Floridi vs Landauer, then it's a no-brainer!!
*
Well, there's a robust and thoughtful response to a whole field you knew
nothing about until a few days ago!

*Landauer's ideas, which by the way are well established and supported in
the information science community, even if not by the philosophical
community,*

What the blazes do you mean by "well established and supported in the
information science community, even if not by the philosophical
community"? Now "information science," whatever that is, trumps philosophy
in a matter of metaphysics? A bunch of computer geeks are going to school
us on the ontology of information?

Please. This is as frustrating as suggesting on an ID blog that they don't
have all the answers either.

On 4/16/07, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> I've been busy with other matters for a few days and now I come back to
find this thread going in all types of directions.
> No, I haven't read Yockey. Thanks for the reference. I hope to check it
out.
> And thanks for the insight on Floridi, Dave. If it's Floridi vs Landauer,
then it's a no-brainer!!
> I won't get into the philosophy here except to say that I suspect the idea
that "Landauer is dead-wrong because his information theory leads to
materialism" is the same category error as "Darwin is dead-wrong because his
theory of evolution leads to purposelessness and unguided chance."
Landauer's ideas do not necessitate materialism.
>
> But all this is a digression from the original intent. I see with regret
that I made an error when I started the thread. I meant to title it
Information and Complexity but somehow I typed the wrong word. Independent
of what anyone thinks of Landauer's ideas, which by the way are well
established and supported in the information science community, even if not
by the philosophical community, there are basic concepts of information that
are important to remember.
>
> One of those is the difference between complexity and information.
Complexity is a physical configuration--or more precisely a measure of a
characteristic of a physical configuration. Information is represented by a
physical configuration. And it can be represented by any of many possible
physical configuration.
>
> Several responses in this thread kept confusing information about the
genetic code with the genetic code itself. Of course our descriptions of the
genetic code are information and are transmitted as such through normal
channels. Our ability to do that doesn't alter the nature of the code. We
can do the same with any type of complex inorganic matter as well. We have
conveniently assigned a C, T, G, and A to certain repetitive arrangements of
atoms to help us decipher and understand the genetic code. That's our way of
understanding it. The genetic code existed for many billion years before we
thought of C, T, G, and A. Our description of the genetic code can change
(we could have used other letters for example or we can put it in many
forms) but if we change the physical configuration of the DNA strand itself,
then we've changed the complexity (or information if you insist) of the DNA.
>
> Computer code, meanwhile is a value or significance assigned to a
particular physical configuration. A computer is a complex series of latches
and switches arranged in a particular manner. A compiler then translates
high level computer code into a binary sequence. Essentially the physical
configuration of electronic switches is defined as having certain meanings
and then the computation can begin. For instance, a high voltage level can
be assigned a 1 and a low voltage assigned a 0. Or that could be reversed.
It doesn't matter--as long as everything is reversed synchronously. What
matters is the meaning assigned to the physical representation. That is,
what constitutes a 0 and what constitutes a 1? In this case, the physical
configuration can change as long as the meaning is preserved and we
appropriately assign the right meaning to a coherent set of physical
configurations.
>
> Genetic code and computer code have amazing similarities but they also
have very important differences. Inferences from such an analogy must first
carefully consider the differences.
>
> Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 16 22:08:30 2007