:-)

[Charlie1965]

Secondly; the source of information is always a mind.
Well, I can agree, we created information concerning DNA, for instance. No problem here.

Take this challenge: just prove to me any natural phenomenon that could produce information.
No natural object possesses information, so sure, no random process produces it.
DNA doesn't have information, all that time you have been taking the word out of context, DNA information was produced by us, humans, once we comprehended how it works and what it consists of.
This understanding resulted in information being established by us.

How you can compare DNA which contains information with a natural phenomenon like thunders :/
No, it doesn't. You are just bad at understanding what information can be. And who says thunders do not work
according to patterns? Electricity surely does have rules according to which it operates, which you then could call a code
or language or whatever like that

[COLOR="#FF0000"]Because to produce a pattern of things and infuse into something; you would need to choose the pattern.
- In natural world, things arise because they are possible to arise, that seems to involve patterns and when it is possible for those patterns to replicate, they do. Not because someone makes a choice.

How can you use logic properly when you have problems with words such as INFORMATION?
Let me give you the definitions again, and divide them into 2 options:
, a) these are claims formed by us on the basis of how we understand something, not a part of the thing that was studied, like DNA.
b) these are claims formed from something which already has claims/information, something which was designed to possess it in the first place, like a book.

Non-believers do not claim that natural world possesses information, we claim that we possess information about natural world when we study it accurately.
I really hope it is clear now.
Cheers.

[mrkira]

Dude simple question. Can we encode information or not? Yea I know you gave two difinitions. And both are not equal. But also they are not contradictory. If you gave information about something then we encode it; it will still be information.

We have done that in a computer language. And it is what we are trying to find in SETI. In SETI we are trying to find a pattern that might be produced by some intelligence because we already know what pattern an intelligent being capable of producing.

[mrkira]

All of your arguments revolve around your problems with that other difinition. And it is now my comprehension problem because I showed you all the reliable sources that exactly said :Information can be encoded into various forms for transmission and interpretation (for example, information may be encoded into a sequence of signs, or transmitted via a sequence of signals). It can also be encrypted for safe storage and communicat
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things: genetically transmitted information

If you were really honest. You should have dealt with these resources and showed my why it was wrong. Instead of throwing random accusations and really bad analogies of Zeus and Gnemo. Those argument should be directed to guys who rely on gaps argument.

[Charlie1965]

All of your arguments revolve around your problems with that other difinition. And it is now my comprehension problem because I showed you all the reliable sources that exactly said :Information can be encoded into various forms for transmission and interpretation (for example, information may be encoded into a sequence of signs, or transmitted via a sequence of signals). It can also be encrypted for safe storage and communicat
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things: genetically transmitted information

If you were really honest. You should have dealt with these resources and showed my why it was wrong. Instead of throwing random accusations and really bad analogies of Zeus and Gnemo. Those argument should be directed to guys who rely on gaps argument.

It is not a problem with definitions, it is your misunderstanding and misusing of one of them without giving any evidence to support your claim. At this point there is no sense to move further because you can't differ between objects with information put in them, and those which don't have it.

DNA doesn't contain information, it contains molecules and involves processes, understanding of which can lead to producing information about DNA.
I did show you:

You believe there is intention where there is none and you believe this intention comes from god.
Just like Greeks.
I showed it to you but you won't admit it because this is where your whole argument falls.

Anything can be encoded into a sequence, that doesn't prove it is because it has information in it.

[Charlie1965]

Dude simple question. Can we encode information or not? Yea I know you gave two difinitions. And both are not equal. But also they are not contradictory. If you gave information about something then we encode it; it will still be information.

We have done that in a computer language. And it is what we are trying to find in SETI. In SETI we are trying to find a pattern that might be produced by some intelligence because we already know what pattern an intelligent being capable of producing.

There is a reason why people look for other creatures, because they know they are likely to exist, since there is evidence for those.
There is no such likelihood in case of god.

And looking for intelligence probably involves structures similar to ours, because we know . Not those appearing independently in nature.

If one involves intention and another doesn't, that makes them contradictory.
If one involves information as a part of the studied element, and another doesn't, that also makes them contradictory.

I WOULD LOVE YOU TO CONCENTRATE ON THESE PARTICULAR CLAIMS:
Nature, inluding DNA, is studied by us. We make conclusions on the basis of that and those conclusions are INFORMATION. In other words, information doesn't exist in nature. It is created by people.

[mrkira]

Again. Answer my question. Can we encode information or not?
Lets go with your difinition. That
"
Nature, inluding DNA, is studied by us. We make conclusions on the basis of that and those conclusions are INFORMATION. In other words, information doesn't exist in nature. It is created by people.
"
Yea lets agree for the sake of argument with this. But my main question remains; can we encode this information or not ?
Can anyone write his name in terms of 0s and 1s? I hope you get my point here

[Charlie1965]

Again. Answer my question. Can we encode information or not?
Lets go with your difinition. That
Nature, inluding DNA, is studied by us. We make conclusions on the basis of that and those conclusions are INFORMATION. In other words, information doesn't exist in nature. It is created by people."
Yea lets agree with this. But my main question remain; can we encode information or not ?

Yes, we can do it.

[mrkira]

Yes, we can do it.

Great. Now we can move on from this point. If we encode information.; we have a code. And this code is still an information if we decode it. It was just in different from. We have a computer code. This code contains an information that was designed by the user. You agree with me here?

[Charlie1965]

Great. Now we can move on from this point. If we encode information.; we have a code. And this code is still an information if we decode it. It was just in different from. We have a computer code. This code contains an information that was designed by the user. You agree with me here?

I do.

[mrkira]

I do.

Well if thats the case. Then you would agree with both difinition of information. If we find information about something or we got informed about something then we convert this information into something else it would be still information in its origin. We usually get informed by hearing the information ( pattern in human voice ) or by reading ( pattern in words and letter) . If we would want to transmit those information to a computer program. We would need to encode it so that a computer could understands the pattern of 0s and 1s. So no matter how we get information. It will still be defined as information. I think I know why there is a misunderstanding in this issue. It's because we have not talked about the receiver and the transmitter. From the transmitter we require an intention to convey an information but from the receiver we dont require that

[Charlie1965]

Well if thats the case. Then you would agree with both difinition of information. If we find information about something or we got informed about something then we convert this information into something else it would be still information in its origin. We usually get informed by hearing the information ( pattern in human voice ) or by reading ( pattern in words and letter) . If we would want to transmit those information to a computer program. We would need to encode it so that a computer could understands the pattern of 0s and 1s. So no matter how we get information. It will still be defined as information. I think I know why there is a misunderstanding in this issue. It's because we have not talked about the receiver and the transmitter. From the transmitter we require an intention to convey an information but from the receiver we dont require that

No, I don't agree. It depends what it is.
Not everything we hear or see is information, it undoubtedly appears in the form of our conclusions/statements once we understand what something is and how it works, but its components and features do not need to be information.

All the examples you gave: computer messages and instructions, patterns of words in various human languages, etc., are obviously filled with information. We know someone put it there for a reason.
But objects from the natural world do not contain information, and there is no proven intention to them.
DNA is filled with components which are not information, we study DNA and our results are interpreted into claims which are information about DNA. People use the term "DNA information/language/code" but they do not mean what you mean.
The term is really used just metaphorically.

[mrkira]

Okay we know that pattern in characters in human languages and the computer language are made by human beings. But what's the common thing about them? Is not that both patterns are chosen properly and it gives an output? That is my focus point here. Whether we know it was made by human beings or not,we would still know the common features of any language. You would agree with both difinitions for what we already know but you don't want to generalize it. Correct me if I am wrong. Because you agreed earlier that coded information found from studying some natural phenomenon is still an information. Yea I know that not everything we hear and see is an information. And I understand as well that features of the process are not NECESSARILY an information.

[Charlie1965]

Okay we know that pattern in characters in human languages and the computer language are made by human beings. But what's the common thing about them? Is not that both patterns are chosen properly and it gives an output? That is my focus point here. Whether we know it was made by human beings or not,we would still know the common features of any language. You would agree with both difinitions for what we already know but you don't want to generalize it. Correct me if I am wrong. Because you agreed earlier that coded information found from studying some natural phenomenon is still an information. Yea I know that not everything we hear and see is an information. And I understand as well that features of the process are not NECESSARILY an information.

Because you agreed earlier that coded information found from studying some natural phenomenon is still an information.
- yes, but I don't believe any natural phenomenon holds coded information or information in the sense you are looking for.

Yes, I started to avoid this word, because I really didn't want confusion here. To us many things can serve as something they were not designed for. Even things which were man-made, I can treat my TV as a bookshelf. It is possible for me to do it. But that doesn't mean TVs are meant to be bookshelves. I can treat a cave as a house, even though, it wasn't meant to be one. If I give it such a role/meaning, it is totally subjective.

We call natural things sources of information, but we don't mean they were designed to hold any.
From what we know objectively, information appears only when something is studied and then conclusions are made.
Unless this is a human product. But even then, some objects, like a chair, do not hold information. You may analyze them and draw conclusions which will become information, but that is completely different.

And I don't believe natural objects which appear in patterns are enough to say they are composed as some sort of a language or information, because that would require thinking, intention and message.

[mrkira]

Yes, I started to avoid this word, because I really didn't want confusion here. To us many things can serve as something they were not designed for. Even things which were man-made, I can treat my TV as a bookshelf. It is possible for me to do it. But that doesn't mean TVs are meant to be bookshelves. I can treat a cave as a house, even though, it wasn't meant to be one. If I give it such a role/meaning, it is totally subjective.

We call natural things sources of information, but we don't mean they were designed to hold any.
From what we know objectively, information appears only when something is studied and then conclusions are made.
Unless this is a human product. But even then, some objects, like a chair, do not hold information. You may analyze them and draw conclusions which will become information, but that is completely different.

Well I did not claim that ANY object will hold information. That is obvious. But we know from our experience what type of things will hold information like books for example. I talked earlier about the common features of languages which are pattern and purpose (output). If we found something in nature that resembles the work of human designers then we are justified to infer that it was designed. Even if we do not know where it comes from and how it happened. Notice that I am talking about DNA only here. Not any random phenomenon will contain the same pattern as found in DNA. Scientists as well talked about DNA resembling information or a library. Even it was a metaphor, these metaphors was meant to describe how DNA is similar to the information storage systems .The scientists did not describe any other phenomena as it was described for DNA. So we have unique case here. DNA is not just some random natural phenomena that scientists described being information arbitrarily. We never heard scientists say that thunders contain pattern of signals and therefore it metaphorically an information storage systems. So here we can see why we are justified to infer that this pattern of chemicals resembles a pattern found in languages created by human being. And therefore, we can infer that it was designed.

And I don't believe natural objects which appear in patterns are enough to say they are composed as some sort of a language or information, because that would require thinking, intention and message.

Well that's your belief. If your belief tells you that all explanations must be naturalistic, than that is another issue. You are free to believe whatever you want. There is always a POSSIBILITY that not all studied process/systems must have naturalistic explanations. Yea information would require thinking, intention and message. And the designer of DNA is capable of doing that and encoding this information into a pattern of chemicals.

[Charlie1965]

[Well I did not claim that ANY object will hold information. That is obvious. But we know from our experience what type of things will hold information like books for example. I talked earlier about the common features of languages which are pattern and purpose (output). If we found something in nature that resembles the work of human designers then we are justified to infer that it was designed.
- Not really, it depends what similarities it shares with our designs, sharing just some is not enough. Plus similarities can be illusory. You can feel justified to infer anything you want, but that's just how you feel and it is not objective.

Notice that I am talking about DNA only here. Not any random phenomenon will contain the same pattern as found in DNA.
- Of course, and if you take another phenomenon, it will contain a pattern DNA doesn't. The argument works both ways.

Scientists as well talked about DNA resembling information or a library.
Even it was a metaphor, these metaphors was meant to describe how DNA is similar to the information storage systems
- That's right, and by calling guinea pigs guinea pigs someone meant they are similar to pigs, but the name is not accurate from the scientific perspective so whatever. Same story with DNA.
Plus I am wondering how you are admitting it is all allegorical/symbolic yet you are using it as an argument here.
It is really like calling pigeons true birds of peace because they are peaceful and some people even started to call them symbols of peace.

.The scientists did not describe any other phenomena as it was described for DNA. So we have unique case here. DNA is not just some random natural phenomena that scientists described being information arbitrarily. We never heard scientists say that thunders contain pattern of signals and therefore it metaphorically an information storage systems. So here we can see why we are justified to infer that this pattern of chemicals resembles a pattern found in languages created
by human being. And therefore, we can infer that it was designed.
I read many times that certain behaviors and things in the natural world "give us information". So this is nothing really original.
It doesn't matter someone uses terms like DNA information as long as they are just figures of speech.
It seems DNA is more important to us than thunders nowadays. We definitely feel like needing information about DNA more than about thunders. So the reason is again subjective.

Well that's your belief. If your belief tells you that all explanations must be naturalistic, than that is another issue.
It is not a belief, it is a lack of the belief you treat seriously even though you don't have evidence for. The very fact that you rely on something metaphorical makes it all not credible at all.

There is always a POSSIBILITY that not all studied process/systems must have naturalistic explanations.
Here I can agree.
Hypothetically, lots of things are a possibility. Crazy people from mental institutions could be the sanest of us all.
Also, if god really exists, there is at least 50% chance that Islam has nothing to do with that god.
Possibilities are all around us, but that can serve as an argument for just anything.

Information would require thinking, intention and message.
- It would, but DNA doesn't hold any of those so whatever.