Biologic information defined (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, October 08, 2013, 01:53 (4065 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I don't see how new information can be called "universal", but our main problem here is that no-one has ever observed any de novo creation within natural laws. We simply don't know how new organs and organisms have come into being. ....(I doubt if evolution has run its course.) -With the arrival of our H. sapiens we control the world and ourselves and evolution is probably over
> 
> dhw: This leaves open the question of whether transmitters within cells (Albrecht-Buehler's centrosomes) are intelligent agents or machines.-As far as I am concerned, they are automatic machines.
> 
> dhw:3. Machine receivers obtain and process the messages and perform the commanded action thereby achieving the purpose intended by the original sender. 
> 
> dhw: In our context, the programmer would be the centrosome or "Construction Planner", and machine receivers the automatically operating sections of every organ and organism, from cells to humans. But you believe cells are composed only of machine receivers. An analogy would be that the cell community which makes up the human brain is also a machine, carrying out God's instructions, but you believe the cells of the human brain are an original sender, while cellular centrosomes are not.-You've got it right in your description of me. 
 
> dhw;A receiver cannot perform an action without also being a transmitter. To clarify: the original message here would be information from a changing environment, meaning necessary adaptation or possible new ways of mastering conditions. The receiver/transmitter (cell brain) interprets, decides, and transmits its own decisions/messages to the rest of the cell or, in a world of multicellularity, cell brains coordinate decisions between the cell communities that make up the whole organism.-Except that I think the whole thing is automatic molecular messaging.- 
> dhw: QUOTE: We may say that people acquired these abilities from their parents and so on down through history. However, this does not in any way explain how the first human acquired this ability. If we assume this happened without intelligent guidance, there are only two alternatives: 1) it is an inherent property of matter or, 2) it is possible for these abilities to 'evolve' over time. A person may choose to believe in either of these alternatives but that person would have to also accept that this is a belief with no hard science to support it.-I assume intelligent guidance. The quote is correct as stated.
> 
> dhw: Inherent property of matter versus (or plus ... I don't see them as mutually exclusive) natural evolution versus God's guidance constitutes the nub of our discussion, and can be applied to every theory about intelligence and innovation. A person may choose to believe that his unknown, unknowable God preprogrammed the first living organisms to produce the FIRST lung, leg, limb, brain, kidney etc., but that person would have to accept that this is a BELIEF with no hard science to support it. Back to Square One.-Yes, Square One. I have my beliefs, you have your non-belief.