(November 20, 2013 at 9:16 pm)snowtracks Wrote: functionality would seem to a measure.

A measure which assumes that the thing being measured is created with a function to begin with. And that any such function that an object performs requires information to do so, which is blatantly untrue.

An eraser has a function; it erases pencil markings. Would you claim that's full of information? No, it's just friction.

(November 20, 2013 at 9:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 8:54 pm)snowtracks Wrote: first sentence under dna wikipedia - Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses.
so are you saying that's incorrect? or instuctions is not information?

It's a metaphor, kitten.

If you think it's otherwise, and this information is a scientifically factual concept, then you can obviously show the method by which information can be accurately measured and scientifically quantified, yes?

so if instructions is a metaphor for information, then it's information.

(November 20, 2013 at 9:31 pm)snowtracks Wrote: so if instructions is a metaphor for information, then it's information.

Way to twist my words.

(November 20, 2013 at 9:16 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 9:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It's a metaphor, kitten.

If you think it's otherwise, and this information is a scientifically factual concept, then you can obviously show the method by which information can be accurately measured and scientifically quantified, yes?

functionality would seem to a measure.

And how do you measure functionality? What are the units? iWannits? MightWorks per unit time?

You really need to clear the field, dear. You're just getting in the way of better players. "Seem to" don't mean jack shit. "Seem to" is as fucktastically stupid as "atheistism," you half-brained, troglodytic twat.

(November 20, 2013 at 9:40 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 9:16 pm)snowtracks Wrote: functionality would seem to a measure.

And how do you measure functionality? What are the units? iWannits? MightWorks per unit time?

You really need to clear the field, dear. You're just getting in the way of better players. "Seem to" don't mean jack shit. "Seem to" is as fucktastically stupid as "atheistism," you half-brained, troglodytic twat.

seems ms gregarium is getting all worked up.

---

(November 20, 2013 at 9:33 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 9:31 pm)snowtracks Wrote: so if instructions is a metaphor for information, then it's information.

Way to twist my words.

you said it, do you want to correct it?

(November 21, 2013 at 2:40 am)snowtracks Wrote: you said it, do you want to correct it?

What I said is that "instructions," is a metaphor, in layman's terms, for the complex chemical reactions that take place. You decided to misconstrue that into an endorsement of your position, when you know I disagree with you.

Now, I'm being entirely serious here: how would you test for information, in a quantitative sense. You believe that this is a scientifically viable premise, so tell me: how do you define information, and how do you test for the amount of it in an object?

Because "information," the way most theists use it, is a big fat trick: it's a vague, airy fairy word, the sole use of which is to draw a connection to information in the sense that real people use it, which requires a designer. It's not a word applied in a biological sense for its accuracy or applicability, but for the atmosphere it produces in a sentence. It casts a dishonest shadow.

(November 21, 2013 at 2:40 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 9:40 pm)apophenia Wrote: And how do you measure functionality? What are the units? iWannits? MightWorks per unit time?

You really need to clear the field, dear. You're just getting in the way of better players. "Seem to" don't mean jack shit. "Seem to" is as fucktastically stupid as "atheistism," you half-brained, troglodytic twat.

seems ms gregarium is getting all worked up.

You're lucky I don't report you for the misquote, fuckwad. What's your point, that you don't know the difference between vague, informal, colloquial speech and the precise definitions of operational constructs in science? I can endorse that. You don't have the first fucking clue where metaphor ends and science begins. So you're a typical Christian mouth breather, hoping we'll charitably interpret your loosey-goosey bullshit, hoping we'll write your points for you, by providing the clarity and concision that you lack. "No dice." You have my attention. Use it wisely.

What is information?
How is it quantified?
What is functionality?
How is it quantified?

Here's a few names for you to get cozy with, dickless. Kolmogorov, Chaitin, Shannon. If you aren't quoting these, you're just taking a dump on main street and hoping nobody notices. For what it's worth, the information sciences, computers, math, communications theory, are an area of some expertise for me. Continue to attempt to bluff and bullshit, and you will have some additional ventilation in your shaft.

(November 21, 2013 at 4:13 am)apophenia Wrote:

(November 21, 2013 at 2:40 am)snowtracks Wrote:
seems ms gregarium is getting all worked up.

You're lucky I don't report you for the misquote, fuckwad. What's your point, that you don't know the difference between vague, informal, colloquial speech and the precise definitions of operational constructs in science? I can endorse that. You don't have the first fucking clue where metaphor ends and science begins. So you're a typical Christian mouth breather, hoping we'll charitably interpret your loosey-goosey bullshit, hoping we'll write your points for you, by providing the clarity and concision that you lack. "No dice." You have my attention. Use it wisely.

What is information?
How is it quantified?
What is functionality?
How is it quantified?

no one would want to quote you or misquote you. you're not nearly as important as you think you are.

(November 21, 2013 at 8:35 pm)snowtracks Wrote: no one would want to quote you or misquote you.

And yet you are