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

But what is your question?

Fine. This is basically the same thing that RichardWang is saying naturalism is but in a negative/opposite manner.As indicated, supernatural is not-natural. If science is limited to the testing and observation of natural things (matter and energy), then by that definition, the testing and observational techniques cannot be used to validate or negate anything supernatural, or anything else beyond nature including those things mentioned like "Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena." I'm surprised at this assessment, cause it is contradicted by just about everything else that follows these statements. Of course science starts with a belief. It has to, unless you are saying that scientific processes validate scientific processes, which would be a tautology (circular reasoning). What you are referring to in these statements is all a position held (a belief) before you have made any observations or tests. You have a priori ruled out anything supernatural because you cannot observe, test, such things. So again, you are here showing the limits of what can be considered by science, and this is again a position that is in place before you even start any observations or tests. In other words, an a priori stance. This phrase is left hanging out there like like an escape hatch. But it is a self-contradiction. The problem is that any "testing" that is acceptable by your scientific standards must be related to observations of natural things. So if anything is observed, it must be due to a natural process. It could not ever observe a supernatural thing because supernatural things are a priori not allowed. This statement is shocking just by itself. If you limit the ability to testing only by natural processes, you can only have results that conform to nature. The limited ability is the a priori belief. Not surprising when "whatever we know" is only allowed to be a natural explanation. You don't allow any other explanation. But it is a premise. You limit your testing to natural things only, do not have any tests outside of natural processes, and thus you cannot, by definition, have any other conclusions beyond something natural.

And this, dear reader, is the perfect example of a strawman.

I hope you realize I was responding to both. I quoted from both and initially put their names in the quoted sections.Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.

No,it would not occur like this. For one, a miracle usually is a one-time event, so you usually would not have the opportunity to scientifically test anything.Secondly, even if you could test something, your tests/observations are limited to physical things and processes. So, at best, in the burning bush scenario science could perhaps determine what the fire was or what the bush was in a physical sense. And there might be a physical explanation for why the bush isn't burning (e.g. the fire is regular fire, but the bush has oil and asbestos interwoven in the wood). If looking only* at the physicality of the situation gives you a physical explanation, no matter how fantastic it may seem, you are talking about a natural thing and not a supernatural thing,But it isn't the physicality of the situation that only determines it is a supernatural event or not. There is also the component of intentionality. Even if you can describe a burning bush in physical (natural) terms, it does not explain how or why that situation was occurring. If a non-material agent causes that particular scenario, your scientific tests have no way of determining that. There are NO TESTS for the supernatural. So even if given the opportunity, science might be able to explain the physical nature of what is being observed (i.e. an observed burning bush was actually a bush (made of matter) that was on fire (matter and energy) but wasn't being consumed because of some physical (matter) properties. But why that particular arrangement of matter and energy came about could not ever be determined by science if the acting agent that caused that particular arrangement of matter was a supernatural agent.A third reason why science deferring to a supernatural explanation would likely not ever occur are the scenarios described by dwise1 Message 82 and AZPaul3 Message 83 in the posts following yours.

dwise1:

---

Rather, we must first thoroughly exhaust all possible natural explanations.

---

AZPaul3:

---

There is nothing in this universe, nothing that can impact this universe, nothing that can in any way be a part of this universe that, given the opportunity to study, we can not science the hell out of.

---

Admitting "all possible natural explanations" are exhausted would never occur. Or, in other words, there is "nothing" that "we can not science the hell out of."Thus, one may verbally say the premise of a materialistic viewpoint is 'tentatively held', the reality in practice is that a non-materialistic viewpoint is never allowed.Do you honestly believe that the burning bush scenario could have been a supernatural event?

I am sympathetic with you RichardLWang, but that was just funny.

And the same status can be said of SCIENCE. Merely an assertion. Scientifically, identifying specific brain activity that accounts for sensory and motor skill operations does have some validity. But also scientifically, that does NOT appear to be the case for other states of mind like consciousness, sense of self, intellect, or abstract thinking. Some tests have been done, and tests are still being done on people without the need for a dissection. And the data suggests so far that you cannot define every mental thought by means of a particular matter pattern. Except the pattern of information encoded by the DNA, mRNA, and even in tRNA is not determined by the QED or any known chemical affinities. Since you are invoking a philosophy of methodological naturalism (MN), I suppose you're logical conclusion is that everything in the end boils down to matter and energy, which you have insinuated is what thought is as well. But since that is merely an assertion, and MN is an arbitrary standard for science, I guess I won't have to point out how MN as a corollary also undermines any concept that science is a valid process. No, we call it a "code" because the arrangement of molecules corresponds to a symbol system that is independent from and conveys information independent from any physical properties of the molecules themselves. Just like a language is not merely a set of random sounds or a grouping of random markings on some medium, but instead those sets/groupings have a meaning to them that is independent of the physical devices causing or the receiving the input. And in our experience, when the origin is known, codes are always the result of the activity of an intelligence.The 'message' is not based on any QED nor is a predictable end product, unless you are again taking a MN stance to it's logical conclusion..... which would mean that no only is any message or information invalid as being nothing more than molecules in motion, but so is rationality, morality, thought and,..... science. You contradict yourself here. If the "code exists only in our minds", then there cannot also be "codes in their systems" that affect reproduction. See, you cannot avoid the concept of information even when you want to. I also find it interesting that your assertions also rely completely on the existence of at least 2 independent molecular defined "codes" acted on by devices that would logically have to be built by code-independent means, all of which just happen to be present via some unknown origin. Oh wait, I forgot.... it's just the snap your it's-all-is-just-molecules-in-motion-fingers that explains it.

Why humans only? Are you saying that for other non-human minds there is nothing akin to information? * - unnecessary word"depending on the arrangement" is another way of saying "information"."information" happens to be the word humans speaking English refer to it, but if humans were not around to think it, the effect that "information" has would still have a specific effect. The parts/matter is still there, but the (purposeful) arrangement of those parts has an effect independent of the properties of the matter itself. That is why information is said to be independent from the matter it is transmitted on.

I was responding to your claim that if humans didnt exist, then information didnt exist. I think it is obvious that information would exist for other minds, be it a dolphin or ant or whatever. Limericks might not exist if humans didnt, but limericks is just a part of information, while information can exist apart from limericks. Of course it would still exist as information for whatever creature mind is thinking it. If by "inherent existence" you are referring to it not being tied to matter, I would agree with you. Information is an abstract thing and not tied to matter, just like we've been saying. It is also the same for consciousness, mathematics, science, and any other concept of intentional thought. 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. Well, I think that is the greater question, isn't it? But I would disagree. DNA has a purpose to store and transmit information. If it does not as you ascribe, then by the same reasoning, there is no such thing as DNA. The message is instantiated on matter of course. But the message itself, the information, is independent of the atoms, or the molecules, or whatever physical medium is used to store and transmit the message. Shakespeare's Macbeth is information that can be written with ink on paper, chiseled into rock, heard audibly via sound waves, be communicated via points of light in a fiber optic cables, transmitted via radio waves throughout our planet and into space, and countless other manners. But no matter what different forms of matter are used to transmit it, be they ink, paper, rock, vibrating molecules in a pressurized space, photons, radio waves, the four base molecules of DNA, or many other types of media - Macbeth, the information, is the same. The information itself is not dependent on the matter. And yet, there still is a message!

But you dont believe the mind exists. You cant have one without the other.

So what? If X didn't exist, then X doesn't exist.But Macbeth does exist. And the content of that information does not depend on the physical medium. Yes, that is my point. There are some key words in there.... but again, so what? The point is, information exists, and the information itself, is independent of the matter media. The reverse order is also true: the matter media is not dependent on the information.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Your logic is circular. The thing created in the mind can not be the same thing that is input. If there are a "unique set of inputs" (which is the information) that are received by the mind, then the mind cannot then also create that information.In the case I am referring to, the information is external, imprinted on matter in whatever form it is (which can by many). You can take that information and imprint it differently on other matter, and the information stays the same. The same goes for inputing to mind(s). Each mind may now imprint it in the brain in a different material form from another mind, but the information is still the same. For each mind, there may be a unique mental state that accounts for the information, but between minds the information would still be the same. If every copy of Macbeth was erased from every mind and every medium, then the information would be gone too.I never made the claim that information is "floating around out there". If Shakespeare created Macbeth, but then all copies of Macbeth materially and all minds that knew Macbeth were deleted, Macbeth would be deleted too. I never indicated that someone else should be able to "figure it out" again.

Oh really? I guess we need to inform the doctors of the National Institute of Health, one of the most prestigious schools in America, all the scientists that read and/or publish to Nature, the all-wise (LOL) Wikipedia that is so popular on this forum, and probably every other scientist and student that has even had brief instruction in biology. And what "specific" cascade would that be? From what I've learned, DNA will cause quite a different arrangement of matter based upon the arrangement of the nucleotide sequence as it interacts with other matter according to the laws of physics. That the arrangment is the result of mindless physics is still yet to be demonstrated. Hardly. No mind has to observe the DNA doing it's thing in making a specific thing according to specific instructions. The information is still there whether a mind sees it or not. The cellular machinary that does the transcription and translation and building of protiens certainly is using the symbology and meaning of the information in DNA to produce different products. They are not minds. Yes, I agree. But as matter is "allowed" to be, or "constrained" by physics, the arrangement is not necessarily determined by physics.Information is created in the mind, and then it can be transmitted to matter within the constraints of physics. But it is not physics that is determining the information, physics only is governing the media matter the information is on. Now other matter, via a mind, can be arranged to react to the initial information in specific ways, thus becoming a form of non-mind form acting on the "symbology". Take away the original minds and you still have information that causes a specific outcome, one that though constrained by physics was not created by physics. If you mean to apply that all the way down to the workings of a mind, then there is no such thing as consciousness, mathematics, science, laws of physics, rationality, or a mind. And if there is none of those things, you have no argument.

I think you are confusing information, the message, with the information media, or what it is stored/transported on.The information is abstract, not determined by the matter. So, for example, Macbeth on paper is an arrangement of ink and paper matter. But Macbeth is not the ink and paper. It can be copied to another media, like chiselled in rock. Macbeth is not the rock or lack of rock in a space. A human can read (input) the information, and it will be impressed on the brain in a form of electromagnetic charges upon neurons. Macbeth is not the electromagnetic charges or neurons. Macbeth the information is the same throughout each example even though each information media is completely different from the others. It doesn't matter how you phrase it. You cannot create something new that is received externally. You're violating the rules of logic. If the pattern of input that is coming from an external source is considered information, you cannot bring it in and say that you just created it. It existed before you input it. Because you are not understanding what information is. I'm using a definition of information that is commonly understood and used by a majority of people when they refer to it: the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects. So, information does require a "something" (in our experience matter/energy) to be arranged, but it is not the something that is the information. The information is the 'attribute in the arrangement that produces a specific effect'. Yes, something (matter/energy) needs to be involved, but merely the matter/energy is not the arrangement itself. There is also an aspect of time that is involved, which I think is understood implicitly if something is being produced. In the example given that we were both using, the information already existed in some form (matter) before it was "input" to a mind. The 'attribute inherent in the arrangement of something' existed prior to the input into a mind which ended up being the same 'attribute inherent in the arrangement of something else'. I was not speaking of when the information that is Macbeth was originally created by the mind of Shakespeare.But if we want to go back to Shakespeare, we can. Before Shakespeare thought up the information of Macbeth, the information of Macbeth didn't exist. Shakespeare didn't interpret the information from matter. He created the information which was then initially on matter (his brain), and then he copied that information to a new something (ink and paper) using a symbol system that could be understood by other minds. If Shakespeare had been deleted before anyone saw what he wrote down, his mind would be gone but the information would still be there - on the ink and paper. If somebody had subsequently destroyed the ink and paper before it was 'input' to another form of matter (media matter, brain, energy), then Macbeth would cease to exist as information.Somebody else could then conceivably come up with Macbeth, but it would be a novel creation and highly unlikely to occur.