NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?

I'm saying that humans interpret the information they discover.

I was quoting your use of humans. Are you saying that prior to human existence nothing existed?

It is object of the information that we perceive. That's not the same thing though as something physical like a daffodil. Certainly we as sentient beings can create new information.

..but if the information wasn't there we couldn't perceive it. Our perception interprets the information. Once again, it is that the observer perceived or interpreted the information differently.

It isn't a case of where it is, it just exists. It exists in the same way that mathematical formulas exist.

I think that maybe you are saying is that what we arguing depends on our understanding of the term "information" and also that the argument is philosophical and not scientific.In my case I contend that information exists without the perception of sentient life. I would even say that it exists outside of our perceived universe. I would like to point out that if I am right it does NOT support any particular religious belief, nor does it preclude atheistic belief.On the other hand, what it does do though is go against strict materialism. It does mean that there is something beyond the material world.In some ways it is the same discussion about what is an idea. You can scan the brain of someone taking a walk, as they decide whether to turn right or left. You can observe the physical effects on the brain but you can't tell whether the walker decided right or left until they you actually see them turn.

The point is simply that the world does have information, such as the colour of a daffodils, or the law of gravity that exists as information even if not perceived by sentient life. If I am correct I am not saying that it lends credence to God's existence, but I suppose that makes room for a non-physical intelligence outside of what we perceive.I do wonder how the "observer principle" fits into this but again that is well above my pay grade.I agree that God may exist without anyone believing in Him, or He may not exist as all.

Data is information.
Here is the definition of data from this web site. Definition of Data
It defines data.

quote:

---

information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered and used to help decision-making, or information in an electronic form that can be stored and used by a computer:

---

The mind simply interprets data or information.

Again, here is the dictionary definition.

quote:

---

information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered and used to help decision-making, or information in an electronic form that can be stored and used by a computer:

---

The first word they go to is "information" to define data.Would you agree that data exists without it being perceived?Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Seems like you are channeling Lewis Caroll. "Words mean what I say they mean." In order to observe there has to be something to observe. The reality is the information/data.

Of course the information changes. It is simply updated data/information. However it does not change the fact that at an earlier point in time the data/information was that there were 1000 onions. (That brings a tear to the eye. ) For example the data/information is that right now the temperature is 18 degrees C. The data/information for 2 hours ago is that the temperature was i6 degrees. Data/information has a time component to it.

Nobody ever said there was meaning. Matter and energy provide information/data that can be measured.

It is information/data that can be perceived, measured and interpreted.

This sounds something like the observer principle in QM, so now we are once again way beyond my pay grade. Maybe you can help me out here Ben. Are you saying then that we require a non-physical consciousness to create data/information?

I’m not sure how much I can actually add to this that I haven’t already said. It is a view that seems reasonable to me but I know that as an endorsement that doesn’t add anything to its credibility.Came across this site and thought that it pertained what we are talking about. It is from psychology Today and I realize that psychology seems to be something that materialists don’t have a lot of use for, but I think that it is worth considering. What if Consciousness Comes First?
Here are a couple of quotes from the article.

quote:

---

The problem is that there could conceivably be brains that perform all the same sensory and decision-making functions as ours but in which there is no conscious experience. That is, there could be brains that react as though sad but that don’t feel sadness, brains that can discriminate between wavelengths of light but that don’t see red or yellow or blue or any other color, brains that direct their bodies to eat certain foods but that don’t taste them. So why is there nevertheless something that it’s like to be us?

---

quote:

---

It’s as though someone created a very elaborate spreadsheet and carefully defined how the values in every cell would be related to the values in all of the other cells. However, if no one enters a definite value for at least one of these cells, then none of the cells will have values.

​

In the same way, if the universe is to actually exist, its properties can’t be exclusively relational/dispositional. Something in the universe has to have some kind of quality in and of itself to give all the other relational/dispositional properties any meaning. Something has to get the ball rolling.

​

That something (at least in our universe) is consciousness.

​

If we look carefully, we can see that all of the physical properties that science has so carefully measured and cataloged ultimately derive their meaning from the effects they produce on a conscious observer: the person who’s holding the yardstick or looking at the fMRI or gazing at the interference pattern produced by the double-slit experiment. Even the properties of the basic particles of physics derive their meaning from the ways that these particles ultimately affect the conscious observations we make of them. Scientific experiments cannot tell us what a photon or an electron is in itself. Science can only tell us that, when a photon or electron is present, our conscious experience of the equipment detecting these particles will be affected in a certain way. (In fact, a large number of quantum physicists believe that consciousness is even more central to the operation of the physical world than this, but we’ll have to save that for another time!)

---

It does appear to me that this view does make sense of our world in so many ways. I know there will be more detractors than those who will consider it.