Replies

It is certainly is conceptual. Despite what you think, there is meaning in things that encode meaning.

True enough; however, where you're missing the point with regard to Shannon's work, is that it does not depend on the presence of meaning in the bits that are encoded and decoded. "Information" in his sense of the word, is about the sequence of bits only, and the accuracy with which they're decoded on the receiving end.

For the purposes of Shannon's work, "information" is nothing more or less than a specific sequence of bits, which is to be decoded. It makes no difference whether the bit sequence was encoded to convey a particular meaning, or if the bits were generated randomly. Either way, Shannon's work provide a means to assess the likelihood of reproducing that sequence of bits on the receiving end.

What? Sperm and egg randomly materialized into a suitable location?

I think you will agree that people have unique DNA -- the exact characteristics of that DNA are defined at the point where sperm and egg combine their genetic information. When that occurs, new, unique, and meaningful information is created. No "mental process" is involved in the creation of that information -- it is a strictly chemical process.

This is true, even recognizing the fact that this new information represents only a very small variation on the overall "theme" of the total DNA sequence. It's true even if the underlying "theme" was in fact the product of intelligence.

The problem, again, is that you are conflating the information (which here is transmitted by chemical means) with the manner in which the information chain is initiated.

True enough; however, where you're missing the point with regard to Shannon's work, is that it does not depend on the presence of meaning in the bits that are encoded and decoded.

I'm not missing anything in that regard. I never said that he needed "meaning" in the message he was encoding or decoding. In fact, you may look at post 85 and see what I said about the subject. That said, it is obvious that Shannon uses semaphores when he describes the workings of a system, since it is a mental construct that he is discussing. It is in his mind and he is transmitting it on paper. You and I receive that message, which hopefully has meaning, when we read the message. Is that clear?

I think you will agree that people have unique DNA

That depends on what you are talking about? It seems obvious that, as far as humans are concerned, both parents have half of the DNA of the child comprising all of what the child has. Now you can quibble and say that once a mutation occurs the child has unique DNA, put that runs the risk of allowing that a person is not themselves upon each mutation that occurs in them. In fact, each cell is probably unique in DNA content in some form or other as the cell is dynamic and the composition of the DNA varies as it is unzipped, rezipped, bonded to, and unbonded from during the performance of the living processes of the cell.

And you fail to realize that the "new" information is useless until acted upon and given meaning. Extract the DNA from a newly formed zygote and let it sit in a test tube. What does it do? What information is there? To form something from this new information requires the living cell and all of the previously generated "machines" which extract the information from the DNA.