Dr Dawkins, it seems that far too often researchers look upon the transfer of information from the genome as if it is just an anology to all other forms of information transfer known to exists. Of course, this view is changing somewhat with the increase of bio-semiotic research. However, may I ask you to unambiguously refute the argument below. This argumnent demonstrates the sufficient and necessary material condition of any transfer of information, regardless of the source of type of information. Specifically, can you show where the material premises are false, or where the conclusions do not logically follow from those premises? Thanks.
1) A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc). The arrangement of a representation may be determined by physical law (as a rate-dependent structure), or as a rate-independent structure not reducible to physical law. In either case, a representation is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes in the system.
2) It is not logically possible to transfer information (i.e. the 'form' of a thing) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter. If that is true, then several other things must logically follow.
3) If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents (i.e. the effect it evokes within a system). In other words, if the arrangement of one thing is to represent (evoke) the form of another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. As a logical necessity, it is materially arbitrary to it.
4) If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law).
5) If that is true, and it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Nobel Laureate Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes.
6) It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function.
7) And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducibly complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information.
8) During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function.
9) From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process i
Slashdot Mirror
Dr Dawkins, it seems that far too often researchers look upon the transfer of information from the genome as if it is just an anology to all other forms of information transfer known to exists. Of course, this view is changing somewhat with the increase of bio-semiotic research. However, may I ask you to unambiguously refute the argument below. This argumnent demonstrates the sufficient and necessary material condition of any transfer of information, regardless of the source of type of information. Specifically, can you show where the material premises are false, or where the conclusions do not logically follow from those premises? Thanks. 1) A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc). The arrangement of a representation may be determined by physical law (as a rate-dependent structure), or as a rate-independent structure not reducible to physical law. In either case, a representation is materially arbitrary to the effect it evokes in the system. 2) It is not logically possible to transfer information (i.e. the 'form' of a thing) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter. If that is true, then several other things must logically follow. 3) If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents (i.e. the effect it evokes within a system). In other words, if the arrangement of one thing is to represent (evoke) the form of another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. As a logical necessity, it is materially arbitrary to it. 4) If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law). 5) If that is true, and it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Nobel Laureate Francis Crick’s famous ‘adapter hypothesis’ in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes. 6) It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function. 7) And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducibly complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information. 8) During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function. 9) From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process i