Guy Hoelzer  wrote:-

> >>> JE:-
> >>> Dr Hoelzer is attempting to make information
> >>> an absolute and not just a relative concept,
> >>> within the science of biology. Unless disinformation
> >>> can be separated by a test from information the
> >>> science of biology cannot operate as a science.

> >> GH:-
> >> Under the view that all information is physical, there is no
> >> fundamental
> >> distinction between information and dis-information.  They are
> >> both kinds of
> >> "information."

> > JE:-
> > Yes, "there is no fundamental distinction
> > between information and dis-information"
> > within physics. However, we are not discussing
> > physics, we are discussing biology and
> > specifically: evolutionary theory.

> GH:-
> Actually, this thread was about Dawkins' use of the term
"information" as
> defined by physicists.

JE:-
I am arguing that information "as
defined by physicists" was
misused by Dawkins.


> >> GH:-
> >> The only difference is that one kind accurately represents
> >> something about
> >> the outside world and the other is misleading.

> > JE:-
> > Any "misleading" information is just
> > contextually senseless information.
> > This can be more damaging than noise,
> > i.e. at best it is as bad a noise.

> GH:-
> That is not what I mean by "misleading information."  In my
view data (raw
> information) can only be misleading if it is contextually sensible.  If it
> were not sensible, it would not evoke an inappropriate behavior.

JE:-
How can "sensible" information evoke "inappropriate" behaviour?
The terms "sensible" and "inappropriate" appear to me
to be contradictions in this context. I can see how
senseless information can produce inappropriate behaviour.
The behaviour determines the sense or no-sense of the
of the information but not the information itself
within the biological sciences.

> > JE:-
> > "information" as
> > defined by physicists
> > If you provide a cell with information
> > about how to form a bone when that cell
> > should be forming a retina in the eye
> > or a blood vessel, then the least this
> > disinformation can achieve is the destruction
> > of the intended event. Such destruction
> > is the same/worse net effect of noise
> > stopping any information reaching that
> > cell.

> GH:-
> It seems to me that in your scenario it was accurate information about how
> to form a bone that you delivered to the cell in question.  The
> problem was
> that this cell should not be trying to build a bone.

JE:-
ERGO: the organism provides the context
for separating information from disinformation
and not the in formation itself. Physicists
use the information itself. This is
not appropriate for the science of biology.

> GH:-
> I suppose
> it would be
> correct to say that the cell was led to adopt the wrong (in a
> subjective and
> judgmental sense) purpose by providing this information.

JE:-
Wrong in only "in a subjective and judgmental sense?
Such disinformation can only be disaster. The
measurement of how much of a disaster is measured
by how much a selectee's absolute fitness has been
reduced by this disinformation.

> >> GH:-
> >> All science
> >> must recognize that both kinds of information exist.

> > JE:-
> > Of course. IOW, being able to differentiate using
> > valid tests between information and disinformation
> > is more important to the science of biology than
> > being able to differentiate between information and
> > noise.
>
> GH:-
> Are you talking about the information processed by scientists,
> like on sbe,
> or the information processed by biological systems, in general?
> This thread
> has been about the latter.

JE:-
The latter as understood by the former.

> >>> GH:-
> >>> Within biological systems disinformation is
> >>> not information it is just more noise.

> >> GH:-
> >> This is plainly false.  Noise, by definition (at least mine), is
> >> unstructured.  It can mask information (structure), but it does
> >> not present "false structure".

> > JE:-
> > Would you define noise as a random pattern?

> GH:-
> Well, as we have seen on sbe, the word "random" can elicit
quite a variety
> of interpretations, so I would have avoided it.  I would,
> however, probably
> concur with your meaning in this sentence.

JE:-
I don't think anybody disagrees as to
what random means they appear to disagree
about how it can be validly interpreted
within any science of biology. If a
random pattern is just noise how can it
be validly interpreted as evolution within
any science of biology?

> > JE:-
> > Is a "false structure" (any formed
> > structure that provided a _decrease_ in
> > fitness) better or worse than noise?

> GH:-
> Here are a couple of my views that make it hard for me to answer this
> question as stated:
> 1. There is no such thing as a false structure.  Any structured
> conceived of
> exists at least in the mind of the conceiver.  If the conceiver is arguing
> that this is also the structure of something else, it is
> certainly possible
> that these structures do not in fact match.

JE:-
In a science of biology a false structure
could be the right structure in the wrong
place, e.g. growing eyes on legs. These eyes
would constitute disinformation and not
information in the vast majority of cases.
As far as legs are concerned such
disinformation can be worse than noise.
All noise can do is overwhelm the information.
Disinformation can subtract itself from the
information massively reducing fitness.


> GH:-
> 2. Whether one thing is "better or worse" than something
else is a purely
> subjective issue that we might or might not agree upon, but it is
> not about
> nature.

JE:-
I cannot understand why you
are claiming 2. It remains
basic to the science of biology
in general and evolutionary theory
in particular, that fitness is the
objective measure of "better or worse"
and nothing else. You will not agree
or disagree with my definition of
Darwinian fitness which remains simple,
objective and testable to refutation.
You seem to wish to substitute just a
hand waving notion of fitness, or
just delete fitness altogether,
as the measure of "better or worse"
within evolutionary theory?

> GH:-
> Nevertheless, my speculation on this issue is probably similar to yours.
> Misinformation is probably more harmful to fitness than is noise, on a per
> bit basis.

JE:-
Then why hasn't Neo Darwinism provided a test
to distinguish between disinformation
and information within the biological sciences?
It seems to me transplanting
absolute notions of information from physics into
the biological sciences where information remains
relative to fitness is not appropriate

> >>> JE:-
> >>> Information is always contextual within biology. Unless
noise is not
> >>> information then information is just a useless biological concept.

> >> GH:-
> >> Is this a backhanded endorsement for my view?

> > JE:-
> > I do not understand your view.
> > If "information is always contextual
> > within biology" then disinformation
> > cannot be information, yet you insist
> > that it is because it is "structured".
> > Structured relative to exactly, what?

> GH:-
> Relative to unstructured.

JE:-
The above is an empty tautology:

Anything structured is information
because information is structured.

Something cannot be relative to just
itself. If it is it now constitutes
an absolute assumption. Please provide
something other than information to
which information can be measured as
"structured" or declare your view of
information to be an absolute
assumption within the biological
sciences.

> GH:-
> This is a common notion in information theory,
> and I don't think it is a problem to measure the degree of structure in a
> context-free manner.

JE:-
AFAICS it is invalid to suggest that
"I don't think it is a problem to measure
the degree of structure in a context-free
manner" within a biological science.


> >>> JE:-
> >>> Within Darwinian theory (the only testable theory we have)
> >>> noise becomes
> >>> information when it increases absolute fitness but not when it
> >>> decreases it.

> >> GH:-
> >> Noise may fuel an evolutionary process, but it can't by itself
> >> "increase
> >> absolute fitnesses" anymore than gasoline can drive your car
> >> to the store.

> > JE:-
> > Well it was just a straw man to
> > suggest that I said, that it could.

> GH:-
> It was not a straw man.  It was a metaphor used to help explain
> my position.
> There is a big difference.

JE:-
AFAICS you implied I suggested "Noise
may  fuel an evolutionary process". I
stated that noise can become information
even by chance. When it does it increases
absolute fitness and does not decrease it.


> > JE;-
> > I suggested that noise is contextual
> > to absolute fitness, absolute fitness
> > is not contextual to noise. What do you
> > suggest noise is contextual to
> > within the science of biology?

> GH::-
> Your question is nonsensical to me.  I have obviously failed to
> communicate
> my view of information to you.  My basic understanding of physical
> information (the only information there is, IMHO) is
> context-free.

JE:-
It is "nonsensical" to you because you
will not (even for just a moment) examine the
opposing argument that I am presenting: information
is entirely context dependent within the biological
sciences where this context is: absolute fitness.
Unless you are prepared to debate an opposing view
it becomes impossible to separate which views to
firstly test against nature.

> GH:-
> Noise is
> noise and can be quantitatively recognized as such in data without much
> imposition of the investigators subjectivity, which could have some
> influence through the choice of structural measures (e.g. Shannon
> information vs. Chaitin information).

JE:-
The phrase "noise is noise"
is (another) tautology.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

POI Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/25/04 12:22:32 PM