Hi Magnus, Graham and all (plus a final wink to Platt),
GRAHAM
> > Or, probably closer to my understanding of the term, you are saying that
it is only information if we assign meaning to it. The
> > question is then: is meaning a uniquely intellectual property? Could it
not be said that biology demonstrates that it finds meaning
> > in the DNA patterns by decoding them as it does?
>
Graham, this is an excellent example of the subject-object division at work.
As soon as you identify the "information" part as an object, you then come
up with the subject part that interprets the meaning. There's nothing wrong
about this, but the Pirsigian twist is what comes first. The "SOM" view
would be that you start with the object and the subject, and the meaning
arises from the subjective assessment of the object. If you will accept my
premise that meaning is synonymous with quality, then Pirsig puts
meaning/quality first, saying that you have to have it first - otherwise
there is no subject nor object (the concept would be meaningless ;-)
MAGNUS
> Does biology interpret
> information in DNA with some kind of microprocessor or is it just
following some natural law when a new cell is created?
> The only thing that seems to be clear is that the DNA is copied, but
nothing is ever said about how the DNA is used to
> create new cells.
Time for a biology lesson Magnus. The 4 letter DNA code is provided by 2
different purines and 2 different pyrimidines polymerized into long chains.
The sequence is first transcribed from the genes into mass-produced shorter
pieces of messenger RNA, that migrate into cellular soup, and then the
messenger RNA is "translated" into proteins. The protein translation
machinery is indeed a microprocessor. The system has molecules to recognize
different triplets in the RNA, a system to bring one of 20 different amino
acids corresponding to the specific triplet and then machinery to polymerize
the amino acids in order to make a protein. It is proteins that catalyze the
chemical reactions of life, controlling metabolism and causing cells to
maintain and reproduce themselves.
Let me remind everyone, however, that the naked DNA is meaningless without a
living cellular machinery around it. It would be like having a CD of
Microsoft Windows XP 200 years ago - potentially full of information, but
meaningless.
> > MAGNUS:
> > . . .the term 'quantum information' is a contradiction in terms in the
MOQ.
Magnus, I think you are being careless with your terminology here. Quantum
theory starts with the premise that physical systems are "quantized" in
distinct states. This is a prerequisite for any information system based on
bits and bytes. A binary switch isn't much good if you don't have a clear
on-state to contrast with a clear off-state.
> > GRAHAM:
> >
> > I am not really sure what I mean either, so I suppose that I should say
that I will get back to you when I have had a chance to
> > think about it. But this could take months, so to take a stab at it I
suppose that what I mean is that patterns of value at the
> > quantum level are the basis for inorganic quality. The inorganic world
in built from them, and that the fact that they contain
> > meaning is demonstrated by the fact that they decode into the physical
world we see around us.
> >
> > Of course, it all depends on what you mean by meaning, I suppose.
>
But it is WE who compartmentalize the world into separate entities that
interact and "decode" each other.
I hope that I don't have to explain the significance of this in a forum
devoted to Pirsig.
MAGNUS
> Indeed, I agree with what you said to Andrea that the term information is
useless without meaning. In my understanding of the MoQ,
> information is intellectual patterns, the meaning comes from the social
layer and the media comes from the inorganic layer. When
> information theory "hijacks" the term information to mean the bits without
meaning, the only thing left is the inorganic pattern
> that is being stored, transferred or whatever.
>
> This also means that it's impossible to have information without meaning
*and* media. And since the media is inorganic, it seems
> impossible that quantum patterns could support information.
>
Magnus, I disagree. The utility of separating information and meaning is
clear. By making this distinction, Shannon pushed communications engineering
forward enormously. I also disagree with the statement "the only thing left
is the inorganic pattern . ..".
The "information" itself is an abstract pattern. It makes no difference
whether it is inked letters on paper, holes in punch tape, magnetic fields
on a disk, microscopic bubbles in the plastic of a compact disk, bumps in
the groove of a gramaphone record or whatever. The only important thing is
that there is some sort of material media to carry the message.
MAGNUS
> And I don't think a quantum pattern *can* store information as we know it.
It seems to require an inorganic quality event to
> 'evaluate' or 'collapse' the quantum bit into an inorganic pattern. I just
read about researchers at IBM that built a quantum
> computer consisting of seven atoms. The main obstacle is to manipulate and
read the state of the particles without affecting
> them. There seems to be no direct entrance to the quantum world, you must
always pass through the inorganic layer.
Magnus, I think that you would have a hard time convincing any scientist
that you understand the jargon you are using. Please explain to us what
quantum patterns and why you think they are not bona fide inorganic
patterns.
>
> BTW, the term 'decode' [Graham] used, wouldn't that be 'valued' in the
MoQ?
>
Precisely, Magnus. As soon as you divide the world into interacting
entities, you can describe the interactions in terms of how those entities
value each other. (Platt, that last sentence is my wink to you;-)
Have a good week everyone,
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:45 BST