[ok I gave in and kept reading]
Suppose language arose by chance. (Which, by the way, is quite an assumption given our present argument) What then? We still apply our intelligence to the two chanced phenomena, no?

Obviously though language is a constantly evolving communications medium. You could say language itself arose by “chance”, although you might have to ask a linguist – not a creationist linguist though. They’ll tell you a charming yet pointless story about the tower of babel.

Other than “God did it” where exactly do you think language CAME from, Hayes?

I’ll post this question on Ask The Atheist, so I can give you a better and clearer response.

I’ll concede that, at present, chance can produce something which we recognise as information. I meant that from the beginning, though my wording (especially of this post’s title) was confusing.
From the post:

My point is that even if chance could produce ‘information’ it would be indistinguishable from junk, and so would not be information. This would be so except when some other information was available for use as criteria

So clearly, a robot picking the letters C-A-T at random has produced information. This is because we have “some other information … for use as criteria”.

In the post I continued with the following, and I think it is in this that the crux of my argument lies – so let us now turn to it:
“if and only if that other information did not arise by chance“

If chance produced the criteria, the criteria would itself be indistinguishable from the myriad of other, similar but junk criteria. In fact, there would be infinite sets of junk ‘information’ and matching criteria, both for and against.

By analogy, yes chance can produce C-A-T but that which makes CAT meaningful is not chance, it is intelligence from outside the system. Ergo, chance alone has not produced meaningful information.

I don’t consider that you have shown that “information quite obviously can arise from chance”. I’ll explain why this weekend.

Anyways the whole point is moot – information quite obviously can arise from chance, and Natural Selection prevents those harmful changes from propagating.

More later, going to a friends place to watch BattleStar Galactica

When I have time Hayes I’ll find a refutation of “information ‘theory’” and link you.

It isn’t analysis, ‘us’ analyzing data – that changes anything or ‘makes’ information in a world of chance. I don’t believe the ‘Post-modern’ ‘reader response criticism’ assertion – ‘it becomes information only because you say it is by virtue of your analysis’ – is either coherent, cogent or consistent. We don’t provide any extra permutations in the universe, unless of course our claim is to introduce new ones from outside it.. (We already know what to think about people who claim that!)
The ‘identification’ or ‘discovery’ of patterns which gives rise to meaning is ruled out by the assertion of the premise. Only the presence of a like ‘us’ being – an intelligence that is separate from the closed system of the universe/library of chance can introduce that.

To unpack this a little: Have I lost sight of the reality that I am part of this universal library? (To ask this is of course in & of itself absurd given the premise but nevertheless) – or can I provide a criteria because I am really not one of the ‘every possible combinations’ contained within the universe? – Isn’t that the logical contradiction?
I am clearly inseparably part of the universe in whatever dimensions it actually presents itself. To claim I provide that criteria by doing analysis – is a very big claim indeed – I would suggest extreme in its arrogance or delusion.
Or to put it yet another way:
It seems to misunderstand the ascription that this is a chance universe, – by claiming as a being (ie only potentially some of the information within that universe) that you provide a meaningful arbitrating criteria. Unless of course you claim to be coming from outside the ‘closed system’ that is the universe & not a product of it – ie not another chance happening along with everything else.

To claim that is a big call – tantamount to a claim to deity. (Tantalising at one level isn’t it that the Bible says in at least one place ‘you are all gods’?)

I prefer an epistemic humility which is where I think the argument leads – Yes it presents us with a self referencing paradox – it is infinite & vicious – for to conduct the enquiry is to already acknowledge that ‘Yes there is meaning in the universe’ – but it clearly can’t be coming from me – for I am an entity bound up in this universe, nor can it be coming from the universe itself – for the criteria is not readily apparent. The meaning I seek must come from outside – it is impossible to ascribe it from within a chance universe/existence.
Further comments:
I think the argument is highly suggestive but not conclusive. That is because I also believe at one level it will not be satisfying for ultimately we will not decide the question: “Did I arise by chance or not?” by intellect alone. In the end I think the battle ground is not cognitive ability but affective inclination – that I suggest is perhaps more what is contentious here.