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

How can a plant give humans the information that it's called a daffodil?

The object and the information humans have created about the object are separate and independent.The daffodil is the national flower of Wales and is worn on St David's day which is the 1st March. How did the daffodil have that information about itself?Different people have different names for the same plants. The word 'cilantro' would convey no information to most UK people but the word 'coriander' would. Yet they describe the same plant.I know that the terms cilantro and coriander refer to the same plant. This gives me more information than those that don't, yet the plant is the same. The man that counts the onions in the field has more information than the man that just sees the onions. Counting the onions creates the information.All this should tell you that the information is not the same as the object. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Correct, we create the name of the plant and that becomes information about that plant. Of course without the plant I can't create information about it but the plant is not the information, it's the object of the information.A host of golden daffodils was the creation of a human mind that was wandering as lonely as a cloud, not the creation of the object that Wordworth's mind came upon.

Yup. Exactly. Our perception creates the information about the daffodil. We perceive daffodils as a yellow flower on a green stem. That's the daffodil's basic information.Now suppose that the observer is colour blind and sees daffodils as uniform grey. What has happened to the daffodil's information, has it changed? Or has the observer created different information about the daffodil?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

The object is there, the information about its colour is created by the perceiver, green or grey or whatever, depending on the perceiving individual or wavelength depending on machine. It's probable that a bee sees it quite differently again. The perceiver creates the information of green, grey or 540nm. Which is correct according to your object?

If the reality is the information, what happens when, having counted the onions in the field and determined that there are 1,000, the farmer walks away and a pig eats one of the onions?The reality now is that there are now 999 onions but the information that the farmer created has stayed ay 1,000.Unless the information changes as reality changes, they are independent.

The farmer's information - which he created (because the onions can't count) - does not change. He possesses the only information available about the number of onions. How is the information updated? The farmer still thinks it's 1,000 and he's the only thing in the universe that knows it. Certainly the onions don't.The object is not the information about the object. The two are independent. This is a very obvious point, why are you resisting it?

It would help if he actually discussed. All he wants to do is lecture us with his pet personal theory.

That is a terrible non sequitur. It made my eyebrows lift.At least make an effort to make a logical connection between your conclusion and your premise.

What is unnatural about language? Genes are chemicals, organic chemicals; the genetic code follows the laws of chemical bonding. It's not logic, it's scientific observation.Just out of interest, are you saying that language and DNA recombination are supernatural?

I think this is far more important than you trying to overcomplicate a fairly simple question Your answer is?

So is your position that the laws of mathematics are supernatural? God does our homework? What are you trying to say?

You have already concluded that some random things like language and maths don't follow natural laws. Unless you know of a third possibility - apart from you being wrong of course - the conclusion is supernatural. Is it not?

And are therefore supernatural?What are you trying not to say?