|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
Hi Richard,
There are no time requirements for replying. Take your time. With regard to opening a new thread, is it your view that this thread has reached a consensus about naturalism in biology? If so could you state that consensus? I'm gaining the strong impression that you do not want to engage with most of the feedback people are providing you. You've responded to only 16 of 60 replies to you, about 25%. I'm not inclined toward opening a new thread for you to repeat that performance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: We have NOT concluded any such thing. We certainly have not concluded that it is a premise. Indeed if it is taken as the rejection of genetic information in every cell (or the fact that humans have language, memory, knowledge etc.) as you would have it in your NvC-3 topic then it has not even been discussed and would be firmly rejected if it was. Let us note, for instance that Richard Dawkins is noted as a champion of the gene-centric view of evolution, which is hardly compatible with rejecting the concept of genetic information. So at this point I must oppose the promotion of NvC-3 as it stands because it rests on an appalling equivocation. Either the claims must be discussed here or NvC-3 must be replaced by something that deals with real differences between the positions under discussion. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: The information was still there. It was just unknown.
So suppose the physicist was the one who counted the onions in the field and now he's dead how can the information about how many onions are in the field exist? The onions are still there but the information isn't. To find the information about how many onions, the onions needs to be recounted. Tangle writes: 20 wouldn't be enough for me. The article appears to me to indicate that information continued to exist even when it was unknown. Quantum information is a different kettle of ferrets. If you want to talk about that, you need someone else (and about 20 years of impossible study first.)He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Tangle writes: GDR writes: Stile. I believe either you or Stile I don't remember commenting on dying physicists. But to me... it seems like the word "information" is being abused all over the place.Trying to define the term in one context, and then use it in another is only confusing, not any sort of "gotcha" moment. If one can't be clear without relying on their preferred terms - then maybe they don't really understand what they're discussing in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
GDR writes: The information was still there. It was just unknown. Nope. The onions are there, but the information that there is 1,000 onions is not. Something or somebody has to create that information, else it is not information; it simply doesn't exist. If you see a yellow flower that you've never seen before, all you know about it is that it's a yellow flower. You don't know that it's a daffodil. The object itself does not contain or create that information. That information was created and transmitted by a human not the daffodil.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I don't remember commenting on dying physicists. That was some idiot named AZPaul3.
... it seems like the word "information" is being abused all over the place. Agreed. And guilty as charged.
If one can't be clear without relying on their preferred terms - then maybe they don't really understand what they're discussing in the first place. The concepts seem so intuitive yet they become so ephemeral when you try to define them. The hard physics says one thing but each person has their own intuition that can be difficult to overcome. Even physicists themselves still have disagreements on the definition. There is a small faction of which push the concept that information, in the form of mathematics, is the true underlying reality of the universe and that matter/energy/time are emergent properties of the math. Try explaining that to your grandmother.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Tangle writes:
The information was discovered by humans and transmitted by humans. If you see a yellow flower that you've never seen before, all you know about it is that it's a yellow flower. You don't know that it's a daffodil. The object itself does not contain or create that information. That information was created and transmitted by a human not the daffodil.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
But to me... it seems like the word "information" is being abused all over the place. Trying to define the term in one context, and then use it in another is only confusing, not any sort of "gotcha" moment. Quite correct, as I remarked in Message 126 of this very topic but 5 days ago. Shifting between different definitions of a term is called semantic shifting and it has been a very common creationist tactic since long before I started studying "creation science" in 1981. Its purposes are to deceive and to generate confusion, since deception and confusion are essential for the survival and propagation of creationism whereas truthfulness and clarity can only lead to its eradication. From my Message 126:
DWise1 writes: The big problem is that appeals to information and to information theory is a basic tool in ID to generate BS claims and arguments and to baffle their audiences. Under the mask of esoteric mathematics, they can freely redefine it to mean whatever they want and to misapply it wherever they wish -- if we can't follow what they're doing, then how can we call them on it? Remember that every discipline has its own terminology often using the same words as many other disciplines (as well as common usages) but redefined to fit the specific needs of that particular discipline. ... { further development of this idea plus a couple examples deleted for brevity } ... One of the oldest creationist deceptive practices has been called "semantic shifting" wherein they take a scientific term and replace its proper definition with a street definition. That way, they can misquote a scientific source without having to change a single word, just by applying the wrong definitions. So whenever a creationist starts using the word, "information", your BS detector should start flashing red before it pegs its needle. Same as whenever a creationist says anything about "evolution". We have seen Richard L. Wang deploy his misuse of the word, "information", here as a red herring to mislead us and to generate confusion. And he has succeeded in that endeavor. Instead, he needs to answer for his misrepresentation of evolution (as being nothing more than point mutations), his total misrepresentation of neo-Darwinism as being something entirely different from what it actually is, and his implying that information must be supernatural in origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
GDR writes: The information was discovered by humans and transmitted by humans. How can a plant give humans the information that it's called a daffodil?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: Humans can distinguish that the daffodil is different than the rose. Humans have that information, and then assign a name to the plants. Humans are simply naming the uniqueness of the daffodil. How can a plant give humans the information that it's called a daffodil?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Humans are simply naming the uniqueness of the daffodil. So where is the information? Is it in the uniqueness of the flower or in the recognition of that uniqueness? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Back in, IIRC the 8th or 9th grade, back in the late 1950s, we were introduced to SI Hayakawa's textbook, Language in Thought and Action.
One of the concepts that has always served me well is "The Map is not the Territory". We like to place things in somewhat neat boxes and we call that stuff "knowledge", but the daffodil we know is not the actual item "daffodil". One is our map, the other is the territory. Maps change. Not every place is yet mapped. And not one of the maps really is the territory. And even when we actually visit the territory what we bring away, what we call knowledge is still not the territory. Knowledge is a critter creation. The knowledge we are most concerned with is simply a human creation. It is never the territory and exists only as long as there is someone that holds that particular map. And if the map gets burned that knowledge no longer exists. There may well be other "maps" that still exist but the one that burned no longer exists. And none of the maps will ever actually be the territory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
You're right there on the edge, jar. Now follow through.
Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes: It's in the uniqueness of the flower. It has it's own specific dna code etc. So where is the information? Is it in the uniqueness of the flower or in the recognition of that uniqueness?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
It's in the uniqueness of the flower. It has it's own specific dna code etc. That DNA is in and manipulates the structure, the relationships, of the matter/energy. But the stem, the petals, the color, the scent, the leaves, the recognition of the structure, all the "information" our senses have created in our minds that result from that DNA manipulation, are human constructs and are in fact, the very essence of what we call "daffodil". We say we gather information from the world. In reality our senses create the information as streams of particles to be perceived within our minds. The world doesn't know the information of petal, stem, yellow, DNA, physics, forces. Our minds do. The matter/energy relationships may operate and react in accord with the natural order but those structures and relationships are not information until they are perceived. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024