mike writes:
You can say it is information and does not require a designer, I would say it is unrealistic to say it is not information, when it fulfills the criteria, but that is my opinion, I am going no further in this topic.
It seems to me that you are defining information as a two-way street: if a mind can apprehend information from a specific source, that source must have been packed with information from another mind.
But information doesn't require prior construction; DNA is only information to the apprehending mind, and then only because that mind has the necessary knowledge of DNA's structure and reactions.
To a well-trained forensic specialist, a murder scene is packed with information. That doesn't mean the crime scene information was designed by another mind (credit to Rahvin). A good tracker can tell you when the bear passed this way--that doesn't mean the bear's mind designed that information.
One might object that the bear
does have a mind, and the exercise of that mind through the bear's movements created/designed the information: but when you reduce the tracking to bacterium and microscope, the fallacy becomes clearer.
The apprehension of information requires mind. The creation of it does not.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
™ Version 4.2
(1)
