🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <51c62199.0112240837.4287624b@posting.google.com> you wrote:
>> >>its code.  Thus, genes are abstractions, being encoded in the DNA,
>> >>as decoded by the cellular machinery.  Discussion of different kinds
>> >>of sequences is irrelevant, in this particular context -- that's just
>> >>arguing about the form of encoding, when that point is that genetic
>> >>information is encoded -- anyhow.

> This doesn't make any sense at all.

You say that, then go on to agree with me!

> Of course, genetic information is
> encoded (wow!),

You'll find many people insist that genes are DNA sequences.

> and the whole point of my question was: is there any
> characterization of the minimum information content of strings (or
> more complicated structures) carrying such infromation? In order to
> answer such a question, we shall definitely need to take into account
> the _precise_ form of encoding. In the first place, even to calculate
> the Shannon entropy, we need this. If we are to talk about Kolmogorov
> complexity of such strings, we _most_ definitely need to know the
> kinds of encoding that are possible in the natural world. For the
> uninitiated, this means: what is the size of the smallest Turing
> machine that can churn out a DNA string? Computing Kolmogorov
> complexity is, of course, undecidable, but there is some work going
> that tries to find approximations.

I wasn't aware of some of that.  Thanks.

>> > At any rate, "concrete work" and this "conceptual truth" stuff don't mix ;).
>> 
>> You have to understand the relationship between them.  Though it's
>> basically just theory and practice, and any scientist should know these
>> are equally important.

> Unfortunately, there is a difference between "concrete theoretical
> work" and "vague speculations where neither the speaker nor the
> listener know what they are talking about." :) For more details, check
> out Richard Feynman's "Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman."

Which of these categories does this fall into?

>> > Any information theoretic work that deals with a genetic system is going to
>> > have to deal quite closely with the exact mechanism of encoding and decoding,
>> > as well as the mechanisms of transmission and alteration.
>> 
>> My point precisely.

> Duh, so what's the debate about?

The main disputed point seems to be whether genes are abstractions or
DNA sequences.

-- 
"The distinction between mind and matter is in the mind, not in matter."
Robin Faichney -- inside information -- http://www.ii01.org/