|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8557 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
So what? I was agreeing with you. You take offence at that?
Without being embodied in some form of physical system information does not exist.
There are some key words in there.... but again, so what? Because the point needs to be emphasized that though the *content* of information is not dependant on the physical media the very *existence* of that information is. Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Wookie B writes:
It would exist only IN the mind of whatever was thinking it. Information is a product of mind. The same reality becomes very different information in the mind of a human and the mind of an ant.
Of course it would still exist as information for whatever creature mind is thinking it. Wookie B writes:
Consciousness, mathematics, science, etc. are STATES of the matter within the mind. They are how the brain rearranges itself accoding to input from the senses.
But if matter is all there is, and there really is no information, then there is also no consciousness, mathematics, science, and any other concept. Wookie B writes:
Like water has a purpose to run downhill? That's a function, a behaviour. What you imagine as a "purpose" is just the result it happens to have.
DNA has a purpose to store and transmit information. Wookie B writes:
But how? What is the medium? What is the message made of? How would you distinguish matter that carries a message from matter that does not?
The message is instantiated on matter of course. Wookie B writes:
The information is dependent on the matter in the medium in which it is stored, minds, paper and ink, etc. Erase every copy from the matter and the information is gone with no way to get it back.
The information itself is not dependent on the matter. Wookie B writes:
You remind me of my brother when he was young. You could show him six ways from Sunday that something wasn't true and his response would be, "But I think it is." And yet, there still is a message!"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
dwise1 writes: No, that is not information, but rather that is data. Data is not information. Data is information.Here is the definition of data from this web site. Definition of Data It defines data. quote:The mind simply interprets data or information. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
I was taught that data was a collection of observations and information is data that has been analyzed, interpreted, etc. so that it "means" something. Data is information. The raw data is a perception of reality and the information is an interpretation of the perception. All in the mind."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard L. Wang Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: |
Admin(151) writes: 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%. When Admin wrote Admin(151), there were 62 (not 60) replies to my messages. I want not to count JonF(150) replied to RLW(149), because from I submitting RLW(149) to Admin(151) replying RLW(149), only half hour past. I skip 4 replies dwise1(5&70&85&112), because in Topic: The opponent of Creationism , RLW(26) asked dwise1 to keep discussion civil, please stop doing so again. If you insist on doing so, I can only ignore all your posts, even if there are good ideas. Please see dwise1(29) in Topic: The opponent of Creationism , and dwise1(NvC-1-5). Therefore, The total messages I need to reply is 57;The total messages I replied is 33; There are 17 messages, which were replied by Gen-Reply or may not need to be replied for different reasons; There are 7 messages, that need replying but were not replied: AZPaul3(39), JonF(49&50&72), ringo(63), Dr Adequate(65) and PaulK(86). Sorry for that, especially for JonF. In RLW(7) of Topic: The opponent of Creationism , I asked people’s understanding that I’m unable to reply all the replies as I type very slow. Percy: look at my next message, please. Replying messages:-------------------------- (13)2 Re — (PaulK(6) & AZPaul3(4)) (18)1 Re — ringo(14) (20)1 Re — PaulK(6) (29)1 Re — 11(RAZD) (30)1 Re — 19(PaulK) (31)4 Re-25(PaulK) & (Tangle(7), RAZD(11), jar(27)) (43)6 Re — 28/40(Stile) & 24(JonF)&36(Tangle)&39(AZPaul3) & (Stile(10)) (44)1 Re - 41(RAZD) (54)2 Re-46(PaulK)&47(ringo) (67)3 Re — Tangle(56&58&61) (68)1 Re —PaulK(55) (69)1 Re —RAZD(59) (76)1 Re-GDR(64) (NC-2-4)1 (Re-GDR(64)&AZPaul3(78)) — GDR(64) is double replied (97&103)1 Re-Percy(91) (107)1 Re-GDR(92) (108)1 Re-PaulK(94) (109)1 Re-Dr Adequate(95) (127)1 Re-Stile(90) (128)1 Re-RAZD(98) (149)1 Re-Admin(114) ----------------- Total number of messages replied = 33 (Stile(10)) means that Stile(10) did not appear in the title of the reply message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Maybe spend less time analyzing what you need to reply to and more time replying.
"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard L. Wang Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: |
I proposed two new topics, but failed.
NvC-2: Information is independent of matter------------------------------------------------------------ I’m used to thinking science issues, but I don’t know how this Forum works. What’s more, I hardly spend time to understand how this Forum works, even after GDR(92) kindly reminded me. I did not reply to Admin(NvC-2-3) in time, while I continued to submit my different posts to this NvC-2 un-threaded topic, so Admin closed it. NvC-3: What is life made of------------------------------------- After thinking for the past two days, I realized that the premises are unnecessary for both Naturalism and my Creationism (I don’t explain further detail, because I don’t think anyone is interested in it). This is my important result from the discussion/debate here. Thank you all. I’ll revise my book to remove all paragraphs relevant to premise. This proposed topic caused a lot of controversy, and I did not response to Admin(114) in time. I’m sorry to you all for wasting your time because of my mistake. However, we still need a topic in order to set a narrow focus and continue our discussion/debate. Here is my suggestion. Based on the feedback, I’ll decide whether to submit. I don’t want to give Admin any more trouble. NvC-4: Do all biological processes follow the natural laws?----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The mainstream biology claims that all biological processes follow the natural laws. On the other hand, I think that the non-material elements in organisms don’t follow the natural laws, so the biological processes related to non-material elements don’t follow the natural laws. Note 1 — I call the view that all biological processes follow the natural laws as Neo-Darwinian-Naturalism. Anyone can disagree with this name, and call the idea that all biological processes follow the natural laws as Materialism, or Whatever-ism. All biological processes follow the natural laws is a scientific proposition, its correctness can be tested by evidence, and how to name it is just a common agreement;Note 2 — There is no assumption that all biological processes follow the natural laws is correct or not. One can think of this as a conclusion based on facts, while the other can say no. This is exactly what we are going to discuss/debate; Note 3 — The non-material elements in organisms include genetic-information, language, knowledge, belief, cognition, mind, etc. If you like, you can discuss about all these non-material elements. I will restrict my discussion/debate to genetic-information, because the research related to genetic-information belongs to empirical science. Genetic-information can be measured, tested, modified and calculated. In a word, all the conclusions related to genetic-information must be supported by evidence. As a result, it is more likely to lead to meaningful discussions/debates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard L. Wang Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: |
See Neo-Darwinism — Wikipedia, please. Neo-Darwinism is generally used to describe any integration of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics. Sorry for replying late and thank for your suggestion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard L. Wang Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: |
Sorry for replying late. RLW(32) discussed the premise of Naturalism in Biology. Now, I understand that the theoretical structure of my creationism can be simplified by removing this premise, see RLW(202). So, I think it is unnecessary to continue discussing this point. I see you, GDR and others continue discussing many interesting issues, and I like to join your discussion soon. Sorry again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That is definitely a philosophical topic, not a scientific one. Information, as you have it, is definitely an abstract object and the nature of abstracts is one that philosophers have argued over for millennia. See this article for some discussion of the matter: platonism quote: Are there any such biological processes ? And if there are, wouldn’t they be founded on material elements and would therefore follow the natural laws for that reason. (I suspect that you fail to understand the concept of supervenience given your contradictory claims in your NvC-2 proposal) I agree with restricting the discussion to genetic information since that is much better understood than the other things that you list.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ringo writes: I was taught that data was a collection of observations and information is data that has been analyzed, interpreted, etc. so that it "means" something.The raw data is a perception of reality and the information is an interpretation of the perception. All in the mind. Again, here is the dictionary definition.
quote: 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member Posts: 190 Joined: |
ringo writes: It would exist only IN the mind of whatever was thinking it. Information is a product of mind. The same reality becomes very different information in the mind of a human and the mind of an ant. The bolded part is basically what I am saying. Information exists. Maybe you should define what you think information is. I agree, information is a product of mind. But whether that mind is in an ant, dolphin or human, it is still information. And whether or not it is different for an ant vs a human is not relevant. Probably, information as it is imprinted on a human mind is different from human to human. Much like a fingerprint on any finger is unique from person to person, yet it is still a fingerprint.
Consciousness, mathematics, science, etc. are STATES of the matter within the mind. Merely an assertion you make with no evidence. It is an a priori philosophy. Nonetheless, it is an irrational position. Those things are abstract concepts that are not defined by the matter they may reside on.
Like water has a purpose to run downhill? That's a function, a behaviour. What you imagine as a "purpose" is just the result it happens to have. No. Water runs downhill because it is following the physical laws of matter and gravity. The information in DNA is not there due to any physical laws of the matter of DNA. There is nothing about the makeup of nucleotides and laws of matter that dictate what information is in the DNA. A function and purpose relate to teleology, but they are not the same thing as behavior.
But how? What is the medium? What is the message made of? I already gave an example of how with the Macbeth scenario. A medium is the carrier, but the medium is not the message, because you can have a different medium to represent the same message. So the message itself is not made of anything, it is abstract. To put it in other words, the message is a particular arrangement of matter (or energy), but that arrangement of matter is not dependent on any law relative to that matter. The arrangement of the matter, how the matter got to be in whatever position it is, is not determined by any law of matter.
How would you distinguish matter that carries a message from matter that does not? The information is dependent on the matter in the medium in which it is stored, minds, paper and ink, etc. Erase every copy from the matter and the information is gone with no way to get it back. If you are alluding to a mind being required to be able to distinguish what a message is, I agree. But I would only agree with the second statement if you replaced the word "mind" with "brain". A brain is the matter, but I don't think that a mind is the same thing as a brain (and that probably is the crux of our disagreement). For the sake of discussion, in our natural world a mind is dependent on matter (the brain), but a mind is not the brain. And a message is not dependent on the matter it is written on. So yes, if you got rid of all the matter the message was riding on (including the brains), then the information goes away to.
ringo writes: WookieeB writes: You remind me of my brother when he was young. You could show him six ways from Sunday that something wasn't true and his response would be, "But I think it is." And yet, there still is a message! Cute story, but I'm not your brother, and apparently you are not aware of your own writing. You said: "I use the word "mystical" very deliberately because there is no real message other than the arrangement of the atoms." Now let's focus.".....there is no real message other than the arrangement of the atoms." "no...message" . "other" . "than" . ????????? *whispers* "the arrangement of atoms" < - which is a message. And yet, as you said, there still is a message! Edited by WookieeB, : punctuation and sentence structure cleanup
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8557 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
The information in DNA is not there due to any physical laws of the matter of DNA. There is nothing about the makeup of nucleotides and laws of matter that dictate what information is in the DNA. There is no information in DNA. DNA is a series of molecules that cause a specific chemical cascade. Those molecules, in accord with the laws of physics, have no option but to react as required. The information is in the mind observing the regularity, the repeatability, of that cascade.
So the message itself is not made of anything, it is abstract. The message is symbolized in the media, be that characters in clay or electrical impulses in crystals. That symbology only has meaning as agreed by those using the symbology and that meaning, abstract as it may seem, is embodied in the physical media of the mind.
the message is a particular arrangement of matter (or energy), but that arrangement of matter is not dependent on any law relative to that matter. The arrangement of the matter, how the matter got to be in whatever position it is, is not determined by any law of matter. I don't think you meant that. Of course the arrangement of matter/energy must and can only be as allowed and constrained by physics. There is no other known power in the universe that can order/form/constrain particles and forces other than the laws of physics. Again, the message is not in the matter but is in the interpretation of the symbology embodied in the matter. Loose, inaccurate human syntax allows for saying the media contains a message, contains some information, when, in fact, the media contains only the symbols representing that information that can only be comprehended in a mind that agrees to the meaning of the symbols.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
GDR writes:
Dictionary definitions are often not adequate in scientific discussions.
Again, here is the dictionary definition. GDR writes:
No. Would you agree that data exists without it being perceived? Reality exists. Observations of reality (data) require on observer (perceiver)."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Wookie B writes:
Exactly. Because it is CREATED within the individual mind based on the unique set of inputs received by that mind.
Probably, information as it is imprinted on a human mind is different from human to human. Wookie B writes:
Your example doesn't answer the question. If every copy of Macbeth was erased from every mind and every medium, how would it be rebuilt? You claim that the information in Macbeth is floating around out there somewhere in the cosmos. So if Shakespeare managed to figure it out once, somebody else should be able to figure it out again. How? Be specific.
ringo writes:
I already gave an example of how with the Macbeth scenario. But how? What is the medium? What is the message made of? Wookie B writes:
No, I'm using thw word "mind" pretty much interchangeably with "brain". If you think the mind is more than just a brain function, you're going to have to supply a whole lot of evidence. For the sake of discussion, in our natural world a mind is dependent on matter (the brain), but a mind is not the brain."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024