The gift of a breeze is blood on a knife, a joker will tease and fill us with strife. To all who appease everything rife, discuss with me please… the meaning of Life?

I agree. Enjoy life and create value. It’s all fleeting.
“Vanity of vanities. All is vanity”
~Solomon

Well, I kind of agree with you, @RealEyesRealizeRealLies, that there is no real meaning to life, and whatever one could come up with, would be, well…Made up. However, my personal philsophy and my thoughts on the meaning of life is that we are simply meant to live life to the fullest and enjoy it. Our time on Earth is way too short. I also think that everything happens for a reason and that the people who come into our lives do so for a reason. You may call me an idealist, but this is what I believe and it makes me happy thinking that there may be some kind of plan that we don’t know about. Sometimes it just makes things better.

I believe the meaning of life is what each individual defines it as, period. Nothing deeper, nor more shallow. Since it’s an individual definition, that only that individual will fully understand, it’s meaning will always be subject of debate. I also believe every individual’s definition changes minute by minute based on their personal life experiences.

@SeventhSense Brilliant comment. “Enjoy life and create value”.

Exemplary discussion prompt.

@global_nomad On a personal level, I tend to agree with your assessment. Life presents us all with subjective experiences which do not always fit into the box of objective reality… yet, it must be reality nonetheless.

A greater plan? I believe so as well. My desire is to promote thoughtful contemplation about that plan, to assist in intellectual debate with those who do not feel as such.

Some plans we make. Some plans we discover. We discovered the plan of DNA. Plans always come from a mind.

@forestGeek Sounds about right. Now if we could only combine your notion with the notion of tolerance and acceptance, the ego would finally fall.

Love the rhyme! :)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – Yes, you’re absolutely right!!

Do all codes have authors?

We interpret DNA’s function as a “code.” That’s our subjective POV.

@PupnTaco Interesting POV. What exactly is subjective about the function of DNA? I don’t see anything subjective about it at all. ATCG, Transcription, Replication, encoding, decoding, error correction, syntax, redundancy, pseudogenes… are all well documented and accounted for. We call it the “Genetic Code” because it IS a code. It’s not like a code. It’s not trying to be a code. It’s not similar to a code. DNA is a code because it represents information that predicts a predefined result… and most of all, it conforms to Shannon/Yockey protocols as to what constitutes an information bearing code.

DNA is very objective. It predefines for your personal physical makeup. All codes predefine a specific thought into a specific action. There’s nothing subjective about it. If it was subjective, then forensics would have nothing to say about your next crime spree.

What a dismal outlook. Bleh.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – What is different about “The Laws of the Universe” which you identify as being authored by humans and “The Genetic Code” as you describe it?

Both seem to be codifications of our understanding. In other words, they both have meanings that we believe we have identified and assigned to them.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: I don’t believe that @PupnTaco is suggesting that DNA is ubjective or objective. I think he’s suggesting that it is a subjective activity to name something by the word “code.” You suggest that there are well accepted definitions of the word “code” and that DNA fits within those definitions.

Perhaps there are well-accepted definitions, but there are certainly other definitions, and it is a subjective matter to use a word for a thing, depending on how it functions; especially when we aren’t sure how it functions.

I’m not sure whether it makes sense to think of DNA as objective, either. DNA doesn’t exist on its own. On its own, it is useless. It can’t do a thing. It has to be interpreted and activated for it to do anything at all. The epigenes somehow sense environmental conditions, and then run the most relevant bit of DNA code to maximize ability to survive within those specific conditions.

However, environmental stressors do not result in the same response by every epigentic-genetic pair. We can establish some probablity of any specific response, but we don’t know all the factors involved, and even if we did, I don’t think we could make very good predictions.

That’s because the process could easily be considered subjective. The epigenes are essentially making choices. I don’t know if they are conscious choices or not, and I’m not sure that matters. What matters is that they are making choices that are difficult to predict, introducing an element of randomness, which is often what we associate with subjective thinking in humans.

If a genetic expression, or the DNA code, itself, has an “author,” I’d have to say it’s the environment. Authors, I think must have a conscious intent to do something, and I would have a hard time suggesting that the environment is conscious. It, like our genes and epigenes, are responding to various preceeding conditions with responses that are indeteminate.

And you know what? That’s all there is. There is absolutely no evidence that I know of to suggest anything further. I mean, if there is a magical invisible author in the universe, then it has to be the great pink slug. The GPS is omnipotent. And you can’t prove it isn’t! Nor can you prove it doesn’t exist. It belongs to that infinitely large class of things that no one has any evidence for, and that no one can prove doesn’t exist.

Meaning is just another tool that our tool-using species finds useful. It’s a way we construct stories that help us predict future events. Evolution has selected for those who can do the meaning thing, because it seems to offer us a survival advantage.

Humans make meaning, and it is good, at least for the humans. The Dodo might have another opinion, were it around to opine. If meaning weren’t useful, we wouldn’t do it. The interesting thing is that there are so many meanings that can be made, and that is part of evolution’s method. The groups of people that create the meanings that are most useful will eventually push out the less effective meaning-makers.

If there is a meaning to life, we’ll only find it just before the very last lifeform expires. It will be the last thing left living, and it will win the “meaning” race, simply by outlasting all other lives.

For now, we can argue about it all we want. It doesn’t matter that much what we say. It does matter how we use meaning. If we’re “good” at it, we’ll beat out our competitors. If good rhetoric is an important part of meaning making, then sites like fluther are pretty helpful in sorting the wheat from the chaff. If muscle power is a better meaning-maker, or if belief in “god” is a better meaning-maker, then folks to are good at those things will do better in the competition for life.

The rest is all opinion. I suspect that people who like to do thought experiments such as meta-meaning-making will do better. But perhaps I’m just prejudiced for my own kind.

@daloon, that, my friend, should be the final meaning/discussion on the subject, because it is so well thought out and makes complete sense, at least to me. But this is the Internet, and no one has a final word on anything, except perhaps, as you say, the very last lifeform to describe what the meaning of life means to it. Much lurve to you for such a wonderful and deep answer.

@fireside There is a monumental difference between the “Laws of the Universe” and the “Genetic Code”. The main difference is that one was written by humans and the other could not possibly have been written by humans. But both are indeed codes, and all codes require authorship.

The Laws of the Universe were written by humans to describe our observations of the world around us… “observable phenomenon”. They are continually modified with newer and more precise observations. There may even be some totally new phenomenon awaiting our attention which will end up being described and crafted into new Laws.

The Genetic Code can be described with terms like “Double Helix”, “Molecule”, “Replication”, “Base Pairs”… and so on… and yes, that is just a code which describes a specific observable phenomenon.

But…

Upon our observation of the DNA molecule, we also discover a preexisting code that has already been written. We not only observe this code, but we also learn to read it. It is already there and we have no idea who wrote it. Think of it as finding an ancient vase, describing it… and then discovering an additional unknown writing upon that vase. We may not know how to read it at first, but Linguistics follows specific properties that are recognizable, and we soon begin to decipher it.

The description of DNA is different from the code that we discover in it. As we learn to read the Double Helix, we discover a gene that says “fat”, and one that says “black”, and one that says “blue eyes”. These messages predefine for an end result. It is completely objective. It is independent of observation.

The Laws of the Universe do not predefine for anything. We can author a formula (code) that describes the properties of a force we call gravity. But gravity does not predefine for anything. Gravity is not a code and it does not possess a code. Gravity is a force.

Gravity does not predetermine for a parabolic path vs a spiral. It cannot tell us anything about the shape of an ellipse. Lava flow does not predict a path and communicate anything to us. We can describe a tornado as “Hot air + cold air + pressure + time”, but that only describes the tornado, it does not predetermine the size, velocity, shape, duration, or path.

Codes predefine for a physical end result. DNA instructs the Zygote to form into a fully functional human being.

Seems like semantics to me. One is more reachable to us than the other and one has more variables than the other. That doesn’t mean that one must have been created by our observations and the other by someone else.

@daloon I don’t argue science from the negative position. Please send the GPS, FSM and the Fairy God Mother back to Unicorn Village where they belong. There is no precedent to support such notions.

I will however pay homage to the requirement for all codes to have been authored. I make no claims as to the nature of the author of DNA except that whatever it is, it cannot possibly be human. You suggest that natural selection could be the mechanism that epigenes are acting upon. I believe this is correct and agree with that assessment.

Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Cybernetics, and Computer Sciences are all very supportive of this position. Mechanisms can and do react to their environment. But in all cases, they are front loaded from the beginning by a sentient author. This capacity is programmed from the very beginning and it has never been shown to occur naturally.

Yes, epigenes are making choices, and remember that Barbara McClintock was demonized for this discovery over 50 years ago. She had to go underground with her work for two decades, but ultimately was awarded the Nobel Prize.

I don’t believe that epigenes are sentient, nor do they need to be in order to make choices. I do believe that they were programmed from the beginning to possess this capacity. There is no evidence to support otherwise, unless of course we take a trip to Unicorn Village.

Science uses very specific words to define terms. It is not the same as secular language usage. The language of Science attempts to be as objective as possible. But regardless of how we describe the Genetic Code, there are reasons behind calling it a code. It is a code because it conforms exactly to the protocols put forth by Claude Shannon and Hubert Yockey.

Make of this what you will. You have the right to interpret subjectively. I prefer the objective standards of widely accepted Science. Epigenetics is finally becoming accepted, just as pseudogenes were once thought of as “junk”, we now know that they are legacy files. It’s funny isn’t it… the classic Darwinian model says “use it or loose it”. Why would our tails have fallen off but our pseudogenes remain? One thought is that legacy files are a component of the Designer model. Designers always keep the old code.

ATCG arrange base pairs for a predefined end result. It is mapped from code A to code B through the transcription process. It possesses error correction, redundancy mechanisms, noise reduction, syntax and a four letter alphabet. It adheres to the exact same protocols as English, French, German, Pig Latin, BinHex, Ethernet, USB, TCPIP. There is absolutely nothing subjective about it at all. Our ignorance cannot hide behind the word subjectivity. It says “Daloon”, and forensics will confirm that for you after your next crime spree.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – “It is a code because it conforms exactly to the protocols put forth by Claude Shannon and Hubert Yockey”

So human observation has nothing to do with it?

@fireside Human observation defines the protocols. But human observation does not change the independent message that is already present within the Genetic Code.

I can observe your transcription process all day long. But my observation does not affect the full closed loop communication system that is taking place currently inside your body. It is identical to man made communication systems… very advanced ones at that.

There would be no communication or transcription or replication taking place if it were otherwise.

On a side note… keep in mind that SETI is not looking for life. SETI is looking for a codified signal. They recognize that where there is code, there is also life.

No code = no life.

Do you think if we understood the variables inherent in the “Laws of the Universe” that human observation would change the “independent message” of the universe?

Does human observation effect the motion of the planets?

Just because one is tangible and testable given our current instrumentation, does that preclude that the other is not, given the proper instrumentation?

@fireside In order to prove that the Universe is sending a message, you first must show the mechanism that it uses to communicate with humans. What is the alphabet A and how is it mapped to alphabet B (English)?

The Universe does not speak to us. It contains no Information. It has no code to transmit Information upon. Any Information about the Universe comes from the simple desire to describe observable phenomenon. Humans author the Laws of the Universe.

To think otherwise is to support ancient myth and folklore of talking trees and spirits in the clouds. Ultimately it requires a great deal of faith to believe in such things.

Any Information about the Genetic Code comes from the simple desire to describe observable phenomenon.

but whatever, you are just talking in circles and ignoring the obvious to support your own opinion

@fireside Yes you are absolutely correct. That’s why we use terms like “double helix”, “recombination”, “replication”, “chromosome”...

But our description of DNA is not related to the message that is already present within DNA. The message inside DNA says “Fireside”... and that’s all it says. It is completely objective.

We can describe the ancient vase. But we can also read a message that is already on the ancient vase. The message on the vase is completely different than our description of the vase.

We can describe a book as “paper, ink, glue, cardboard, leather”. And then we can also read the book. The quantity of Information within the book does not speak of “paper, ink, glue, cardboard or leather”. The content speaks of fiction, or instructions, or suspense, or history. The content contains Information independent of the medium that carries it.

The medium is never the message… ever, never ever.

@NaturalMineralWater What’s so dismal about authoring our own meaning? I see a great deal of freedom with this model. The Atheist is free to pursue any path they choose, and the Theist rejoices in the comfort of knowing that they are creating their own eternal essence. This is a very simple and elegant notion… the kind that Jesus, Einstein, Buddha and even Hawkings could embrace.

If it comforts you to think that the complexity of the genetic code implies an author, then fine. There is not much point in arguing, since there is no way of testing your assumption.

But there has been some interesting research in what is called complexity theory that shows how complex emergent behavior can result from some very simple rules. For example, the ability of ants to find the shortest path to a food source can be explained by the deposition of pheromones and their evaporation. I think some of the most interesting work to be done in science will come not from discovery of more fundamental laws but from seeing how the laws operate to generate complex behaviors.

Instructions = Code? Huh.

@PupnTaco No instructions can be given without a code to give them upon. But no, instructions are not equal to code. Instructions are a type of message… just like fiction, or history, or a political speech… and all messages must be sent upon a code of some sort.

DNA sends instructions (a message) to RNA. It very clearly maps code A to code B (and much more). There has never been a documented mechanism shown capable of creating a message of any kind without an author.

So if it hasn’t been documented, it doesn’t exist?

@PupnTaco Well no of course not. Brainwaves existed long before the invention of the electroencephalogram ever did… I get your point.

But science must be careful about moving forward on “what if”... And even worse, science must acknowledge what is known… and not hide under a blanket pretending that something isn’t so… when it clearly has been proven to be that way.

There are trillions upon trillions of precedent to confirm that message bearing codes require authorship. There is not one example of a naturally occurring message from any source. Science demands that we MUST infer the existence of an author.

If you found a book in the dumpster with its cover ripped off (concealing the author)... we don’t automatically assume that the book just wrote itself.

We must infer the existence of an author for the Genetic Code by every standard that we infer the existence of a force we call Gravity. We cannot see, touch, feel, taste or hear gravity… we only see the effects of gravity upon the things around us. It is predictable and repeatable and science moves forward with the confidence of careful considerations to its observable properties.

Why should we pretend any different for what we know about messages, code and their required authorship?

@LostInParadise Well… it’s not really a matter of “comfort”... I hadn’t really thought about that… perhaps I should. I don’t really know how I feel about that…

I’ve made no claims about the nature of the mysterious author, only the requirement for one… as the evidence of science demands of me.

Deny the message if you like… but don’t shoot the messenger… please!

I have no problem with complexity. I acknowledge the tornado and the snowflake alike in all their glory. Complexity does not need authorship, nor code, nor any message of any sort.

But you’re missing an important distinction between complexity and codes. The complexity that you speak of is irreducible complexity. It cannot be reduced in any way lest the end result not turn out the same.

Code is reducible… all the way down to a value of 1. The six million letters of your DNA can be reduced down to “LostInParadise”… and that can be reduced to “L”.

Complexity and Code are two entirely different things. Noting that one of them requires an author is but one of many differences. Complexity does not need an alphabet, nor a transmitter, receiver, syntax, error correction, semantics, noise reduction, translation, replication… or intention. Code needs all of these things.

DNA has all of these things.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – Is this a code?

@fireside It is a human authored code that represents observable phenomenon. The letters on the page are not equal to the actual elements that they represent. One represents the other.

That code has already been reduced as well. The color “blue” represents “actinide elements”... and that phrase represents something else with a specified set of observable properties.

The chart itself is also a code with properties of its own that must be acknowledged in order to be interpreted properly. The color chart is another code.

The entire representation could be mapped to drum beats, pig latin, or scratches in the sand. The medium can change, but the message will remain the same, thus illustrating the independent properties of the medium and the intended message.

But this code is at the level of labeling (tags). Intentions aren’t communicated until the sentence level.

@fireside Code always represents something other than itself. Your provided “link”... the word “link” represented something other than the letters L – I – N – K.

The words I write to you at this moment represent the thoughts from my mind.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies ,
You are missing my point. Take the ant example. The pheromone behavior is coded. The emergent shortest path result is not specifically coded for. So we have complex behavior emerging from a simple coded behavior.

@LostInParadise The ants encoding the trail is no different than the bee waggle or the whale song. Instructions are instructions… and they always come from a mind.

Whether it is instinctual or intentional is a matter of debate. I’m still studying this phenomenon. Humans seem to be unparalleled in there ability to create an entirely new set of symbolic representation at the drop of a hat. Animals are locked down to their one system of communicating, which begs the question of whether it is actually communication or a simple set of unintentional triggers.

I’m wondering how the hypothesis that there is an “author” for the genetic code actually helps us predict the effect of the code any better? It appears that your only evidence for a hypothetical author is that codes require authors. You keep citing a couple of people, who I have read, so I have no idea what they say.

However there are a couple of problems we have to fix in order to proceed. For one, we need to know how you define “author.” Then we need to know why “authorship” is so important. Again, how does it enhance our ability to understand the genetic code?

You write: “You have the right to interpret subjectively. I prefer the objective standards of widely accepted Science.”

Standards of science may be objective, but that does not mean that objectivity can predict the future with any better precision than subjectivity. Besides complexity, which adds it’s own unpredictability to the mix, there is also the probabilistic nature of many phenomona. Both these factors confound our ability to understand and predict the effect of various changes we might introduce. Because of complexity, we can never have the same conditions twice. We can never know all the factors involved when trying to understand why these inputs reach that set of outcomes.

Science is based on attempts to be objective, but even the simplest of activities—measurement—introduces so much error, that it’s hard to say anything is unbiased. Sure, we can attempt to eliminate as much bias as possible, but my guess is that it’s impossible to eliminate all of it. If true objectivity is impossible, then what does science mean?

Anyway, observation, theory, hypothesis, data gathering, analysis, results, and round again. I’m afraid I can’t see how your authorship hypothesis helps in any way. It’s the same thing as my invisible pink slug and your unicorn choir. Let’s let them go play in the recesses of our minds, but there’s no need to take the undisprovable very seriously.

The more I read this thread the more I am fascinated by the premise of a code to assign(name, identify) and a code to discover(unearth, reveal). Discovery does not always presuppose a code though because it is sometimes revelatory in nature through no particular code.
A perfect example would be the DNA sequence whereby the author dreamed of snakes intertwining. Likewise the inventor of the sewing machine had a dream where natives were poking him with spears with holes in the ends. Both essentially solved their respective problems.
From Lienhard’s Engines of our Ingenuity

@daloon We’re splitting off into two different issues. I never suggested that noting the requirement for code authorship would help predict transposition in any way. Nor did I suggest that it would help us to understand the genetic code any better.

Noting the required authorship is a clue to the original question prompt about uncovering the meaning of life (if indeed there is one). It is a monstrous clue, and one that hopefully you will give thoughtful consideration to… as I see you have a mind for these notions.

But quickly, as to how I define “author”…

An Author is first and foremost a sentient entity. Anyone who possesses a capacity for engaging concepts of symbolic representation, can be an Author. But to actually be an Author, one must combine symbolic logic with desire… the desire to manifest an immaterial thought from the mind, into a material representation of that thought, thus bringing it into the physical realm. Intention is key, for nothing with meaning can be communicated without the intentional desire to do so. Anything meaningful is a specific quantity of Information. Information can only be known, and/or communicated, upon a code. Yet, Information exists independently from that code which expresses it. The medium is never the message.

At your request, I would be pleased to discuss what constitutes a thought. That requires us to note the difference between “cause/reaction” and “thought/action”. But for now, let us return to the “meaning of life”, and why noting an Author is crucial to unveiling it.

I believe there are two meanings to life actually… and both require Authorship.

A dialogue between friends… You the Architect, me the Onlooker.

Me “Hey what do you have there”?

You “Oh just some plans”

Me “Plans for what”?

You “I’m building a house”

Me “May I see your plans”?

You “Uh… Sure”

Me “What are your intentions for these plans”?

You “Uh, like I said… I intend to build a house”

Me “Where did your intentions come from”?

You “Heh!… My intention came from my mind of course”

Me “So now your intentions have left your mind, and you put them in these plans?”

You “Hmmm, No, my intentions are still in my mind. The plans only represent my intentions. But the plans are not actually my intentions”

Me “Why do you need plans when you have intentions?”

You “Because intentions alone are not enough to build a house”

Me “So all you need to build a house is intentions and plans?”

You “Basically yes”

Me “What about the raw materials?”

You “It’s all accounted for in the plans”

Me “What about all the hard work involved? The help? The permits?”

You “It’s in the plans”

Me “But what exactly is the meaning of all this”?

You “Well, ultimately… the meaning is, like I said… house”

Me “So intentions and plans mean house”?

You “If you intend to build a house, and then plan to build a house, then HOUSE is the only possible meaning there could be.

Me “Hmmm… what are you going to do with the house?”

You “I’ll present it to the owner of course”

Me “But what if the owner doesn’t treat the house well?”

You “It’s his house… he may do as he pleases. My job will be complete at that point”

Daloon… If an Author of DNA intended to make a human, and then laid down the plan of DNA to do so, then we, as humans, are the meaning to our own lives. We are the meaning. And it is so close to us that we cannot see it. We constantly look for the meaning in every place that it isn’t, for the past 20,000 years.

That is the first meaning of life. Within the first few days of conception a unique Genetic Code forms. All codes have Authors. All codes represent Information. All Information is Meaningful. All Meaning is Intended. All Intentions come from a mind.

The second meaning of life is arrived at from our own authorship. We create our own meaningfulness in our relationship to every struggle, hardship, pleasure, deceit, empathy, murder and charitable action that is experienced, by our own hands. And at the end of it all, we have scribed a meaningful and well fought tome which crafts our essence. A manuscript overflowing with the meaning behind our lives here on earth.

I’ve heard it said, that “the milestones of life may grind, but they grind exceedingly fine”

Well, hopefully I’ve stirred the soup a bit. I dread you may find it cold. Not my intention I assure you.

The Pink Slug…? The Unicorns…? Neither one of us sees a reason to address them in any way. As you say, “…there’s no need to take the undisprovable very seriously”.

But when it comes to code… I am forced to acknowledge authorship because it is the only proven mechanism. Science and Logic demand this of me. And thus, I must infer the existence of a sentient author for the Genetic code as well. No other natural mechanism has shown itself capable of crafting meaningful sentences of any kind.

@SeventhSense I am so very pleased with your comments, because they unearth a much deeper level to this discussion. You are perceptive SeventhSense… :)

I get the essence of your thoughts and they are right on target. I am however, a hard linguist, and note the critical definition of terms we use to describe such an intricate concept.

Play with me for a moment and see if this does not make sense…

You chose the words “discovery” and “revelatory”… fine fine it does get the message across appropriately enough. Please consider that “discovery” is a solo venture, but “revelatory” must be “revealed”. Revealing takes two entities for it constitutes a “Revealer” and the recipient of that which is “Revealed”. Revealing is something that must be communicated from one entity to another entity.

Discovery only requires one entity… the “Discoverer”.

There is a giant chasm between discovering something vs. having something revealed to us. Discovery requires no communication, hence no code, hence no intention is necessary. Discovery can happen by pure chance. Chance never produces meaningful messages. Any meaning that we assign to chance is that which we author ourselves from our observations of said happening. Humans create the meaning behind chance events. Chance events do indeed have causes, but cause is not the same as meaning.

Dreaming of snakes and spears… that my friend, is coming into union with the pure essence of experiential perception. No thinking required, no language, no code…
Quintessence is upon us, and it affects us in ways that no science can explain.

At the very moment that we begin to “think” about it… it has left us. But the Quintessence is so powerful that we have become endowed with an understanding far beyond any human communication protocol could have provided. A standard language would have been interpreted too subjectively, and so it is not suitable for such revelatory experiences.

Now that we have it… that purest essence of a thing… we begin to describe it, define it, label it… yes, we codify the experience into a thought, a thought we can understand and relate to. No thought may be understood without a language (code) to think that thought upon. Yet the essence was somehow communicated to us without a thought… just pure experience was all that was needed.

The big question is… if it was revealed… who is the Revealer? What’s don’t reveal. Only Who’s reveal…

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: Hmmm. We agree about where meaning comes from, although I’d say we got there by very different routes. In fact, I don’t see how you arrived at the right conclusion using the method you did, since it seems to me that it points at the author to define meaning, not us, ourselves.

In any case, you haven’t convinced me that a code requires an author. Code can be self-assembling, and computer scientists are hard a work developing self-assembling code. All that is required in the beginning is a little bump, and code can be created. That “little bump” can be an accidental confluence of natural events. Is lightning an author? Rain? Primordial soup? DNA didn’t always exist; RNA didn’t always exist.

There are, however, quite a few competing theories about how the building blocks of life can develop out of chemicals and energy running around billions of years ago. In essence, you could consider it to be code organizing itself, but that might be a misnomer. Perhaps it is just an accident that biological code came into existence. Then, you can trace it back further to wonder where the laws of the universe came from. Again, there are many theories about that, and new information being found all the time. However, it seems that all these processes have the potential to be explained without requiring the existence of an author.

@daloon Yes, code can be self assembling IF the computer scientist programs it to be that way… I touched on this earlier mentioning AI. You yourself said that “computer scientists are hard at work developing (it)”.

Yes, all that is required at the beginning is a little “bump” (from a qualified programmer). But where do you get the idea that the “little bump” can be an accidental confluence of natural events? That has never happened… not once… and so there is not precedent to support such a thought. You are free to support that hypothesis at any time… but until you or someone else does, can we please go with what we do know about codes, and their requirement to have sentient authorship. That hypothesis is proven billions of times every single day… and even as we speak about it now.

Lightning an author? Shocking…

Rain an author? Soggy…

Soup an author? Bland…

You are correct that DNA & RNA didn’t always exist. The message I’m currently authoring to you didn’t always exist either. Codes must be created.

Energy and Matter cannot be created. They can only be reformed. Information on the other hand can be created, must be created, and always is created by a sentient author.

“Information is Information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present”.
Norbert Weiner, Cybernetics p147 (From Betrayal to Betrothal)

A “confluence of natural events” is materialism. Information is Immaterial.

Yes I’m aware of the “competing theories”. None of them address the core issue at hand.

Firstly… a synthetic ribosome will never do. We create lots of things in the lab that never occur in nature.

Secondly… a few proteins doesn’t account for where the Information came from. I accept that some of the building blocks were there, but what was the mechanism for programming them into a meaningful and structured sentence.

Thirdly, and most profoundly… what Biology tends to overlook is the intricate details of Linguistics. We need more than a few randomly assembled molecules to create a meaningful sentence daloon. The alphabet, the semantics, information processing, error correction, noise reduction, sender/receiver mechanism… code A (DNA) to code B (RNA) mapping… All of these elements must occur at the same time.

Molecular Chaos can indeed find order… The snowflake proves this in spades. But that is irreducible complexity. It cannot be reduce by one bit or the results will not be the same. Codes are always reducible, down to a factor of 1. Complexity and Code are unrelated, and all to often weakly conflated as being equal to one another. They are not.

As well… I don’t wonder where the “Laws of the Universe” came from. They came from human beings. The “Laws of the Universe” are simple descriptions of the observable phenomenon around us.

You say…
”...there are many theories about that, and new information being found all the time.”

Daloon… No one “finds” information in the cosmos. We observe the cosmos, we discover (find) new observable phenomenon in the cosmos, then we describe our observations. That description represents the Information about our observation. The information is in our minds, and code is the only mechanism to get it from one mind to another. If anyone thinks that Information is “just out there”... please describe the communication protocol that is used to transmit it to humans. There is no Info in the Universe… I know this because there is no code in the universe.

SETI is not looking for patterns of chaos. SETI is looking for a codified signal. They fully understand that where there is code, there is also a sentient author to speak with. If the Universe was filled with Information already, then SETI would have been shut down long ago.

An Atheist who claims that Tree Rings tell us about the Growing Seasons is just as delusional as a Theist who claims the Devil made me do it. Trees don’t talk to humans and so they can tell us nothing about anything at all. To believe otherwise supports mysticism and folklore, ultimately turning the Atheist into a parody of the religious fanatic that they mock.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Ah, but code can be self assembling through evolution. In order for a code to be created, a function that can relate initial conditions with final outcome must exist. You assert that this function must be an intelligence. However, such a function exists outside of intelligence, and that function is Natural Selection.

A code, as you explain it, is a representation of one thing by another. DNA is a molecule. This molecule was originally simply a molecule. However, when that molecule began to self-replicate it became subject to Natural Selection. Natural Selection is the cause of this code….perhaps even the source of all code. It is the source of the code because it could relate the initial molecule with how efficiently the molecule could reproduce (indirectly of course). This indirect link between DNA’s configuration and the fitness of the molecule to survive causes a code to develop.

When a specific gene is related to its outcome this feedback loop allows the DNA code and even transcription process to develop simply because better versions of the process allows for better replication.

Humans create codes interpreting some conditions as representing something else. Natural Selection can create codes by interpreting conditions as representing something else.

If you want to argue that the “computer programmer” of the Universe caused this then I have no problem with that; however, your persistent assertion that DNA must specifically have been authored is unfounded. There is no reason to believe that intelligence is required for code to develop.

@Shuttle128 It has been noted numerous times that DNA was probably frontloaded from the beginning with the capacity to sense, react, judge and reprogram. AI confirms this notion and I have no issues with that whatsoever. But the initial programmer is a must.

Natural Selection has never shown itself as capable of “causing” a code. It may cause an existing code to change itself, and that would still place the code in authorship position, and Natural Selection as stimuli to encourage the reprogramming. But there is nothing to suggest that Natural Selection can BE the author (creator) of a new code. Causing and Creating are two entirely different things. Codes are created. Landslides are caused. Creating goes with Action, as Cause goes with Reaction. Action and Reaction are different things. Action requires plans. Reaction requires cause.

As well, we can’t leap frog straight to a self replicating molecule being subject to Natural Selection. Was it not subject to the same pressures before it became self replicating? We must first designate what caused (or instructed) the molecule to self replicate to begin with. Yes there are theories, but all of them have giant holes, and none of them explain the creation of Information, and the required protocols and processing equipment necessary for anything to be communicated.

There is every reason “to believe that intelligence is required for code to develop”. It happens billions of times every day for the past 20,000 years at least. There is no reason to believe that code can develop naturally because there is not one documented example of it on historical record. It can be programmed to change yes, in fact geneticists are beginning to do that currently, and it can also be frontloaded to change on its own based upon stimuli… but code has never ever been shown to arise naturally.

You’re using JamesTheSecond’s argument here. “If it wasn’t observed directly it didn’t happen.” What physical limitations prevent a code from developing through natural selection? Natural selection has the ability to modify the original molecule based on the final outcome of a series of chemical reactions. That’s all there is to it. There’s no magic required.

@Shuttle128 I never mentioned “magic” as a requirement for code to exist. Only a sentient author is necessary.

Indeed, I should have said intelligence. Intelligence may not be magic, but it is quite amazing though.

42?

The meaning of life is the expression of our highest intent, our grandest vision, that which is completely unique within us each which seeks, asks, intuits, senses, feels, deciphers and expresses that which is only ours to utter. Yet that which simultaneously joins within the collective as part and parcel of the interdependent co arising of phenomena and experiences which it recognizes ultimately as one in the same with its own consciousness to answer the same question of this expression.

The ultimate meaning of life is to stop wondering about the ultimate meaning of life.

You are here now! lol

I thought everyone knows the answer to the question of the meaning of life… The answer is 42!