Replies

A parasite in my gut doesn't change when I die - does that mean it isn't alive either?

No, dougd, it's alive -- for a while. With its host dead, that won't be long. And then its DNA will still be there, too.

You wrote: "an unfortunate side effect of Shannon's work [is] that we believe that data and process must be functonally independant - something which is not necessarily true...." On the other hand, the functional independence of data and process permits Shannon information theory to have universal application to all fields where information processing is relevant. It is "cross-disciplinary" and "content neutral." It works as well in cancer research as it does in information technology.

Then there is this: "Moreover, your argument that DNA doesn't change when it's organism dies and therefore cannot itself be 'alive' seems to me like saying Souls do not exist of more prosaicly, since a hive can be destroyed it proves that the individual bees or ants are not alive."

I just think that's a bad analogy, FWIW. Go see for yourself whether you think this might be the case. In the first place, "soul" is not a term that has application in science. But if we want to go with the body/soul analogy, bees and ants are not the "souls" of the hive that houses them. If there is a "soul" here, it is in the swarm, or colony, not in the structure that houses it. And if we want to use the analogy anyway, for bees and ants, that "soul" might well be the collective organizational intelligence of the swarm.

Or so it seems to me, dougd. These are fascinating things to think about, and discuss. I'm not saying all my answers are "right." But these are the answers I have -- so far. And Life's for learning....

bees and ants are not the "souls" of the hive that houses them

I think you misunderstood somewhat. I was not analogizing 'soul' and the individual organisms of a 'hive,' but using each as independant analogies to DNA. Perhaps more precisely, I might say the queen is akin to the 'DNA' of the hive 'organism.' That destroying the hive (organism) leaves the queen (DNA) unchanged does not argue that the queen (DNA) is not alive.

the functional independence of data and process permits Shannon information theory to have universal application to all fields where information processing is relevant.

my point precisely. When you say all fields, I infer a conception that there can be no other fields wherein data and process are not separate and distinct - the kind of blindness which limits inquiry, understanding and discovery.

I conjecture that at least both DNA and neural activity are those fields where data and process conjoin. I argue that if we are to understand these two types of 'information processing,' then we have to shed the 'staightjacket' of thinking data storage must be distinct from process for there to be information processing.