Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.

Tim Tyler <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
"John Wilkins" <j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

On this account of "information", it would seem that any regular causal
influence is information. Hence, all physical things are information. So
I wonder what use there is in calling anything information at all, let
alone genes. It simply fails to say anything other than "it is physical".

I have said this very thing many, many times. The same is generally true for
the way "computation" is used. Also, to some extent the same thing occurs
when it is said that brains "process." What does "process" mean other than
some neurons 'fire,' and they make other neirons 'fire'"? I use "firing" for
action potentials, but I could easily have included generator potentials
and, possibly, gap junction type stuff.

A diagram of what 'processing' usually means in computer science:

http://www.teach-ict.com/as_a2/topics/input%20processing%20output/input_pr
ocess_output/

The physical substrate is not considered relevant - so processing need not
involve neurons, or any other hardware implementation detail.

Of course, but if to be that "hardware" all something needs to do is
impart some regular effect, then not much is gained by calling it
"computation" is it? If there is worth in using a computational
metaphor, it had better deliver something more than the ordinary
physical sense of "causation".

For example - there is worth in using the same metric (say, Shannon's
_H_) for telecommunications independently of implementation, because
there are physical systems that instantiate Shannon communication
systems to a relevant degree. What is at issue here, though, is whether
that is also true of organisms, and in particular of therir system of
heredity. In other words, is anything gained by equating heredity with
information transmission (other than convenience or imaginative
vividness)? The proof would be to show that something like the Shannon
equation can be used to explain the dynamics of heredity. But this is
exactly what we lack (and the equations for heredity don't seem to this
ignorant deluded fool to resemble those of any formal theory of
information).
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

.