Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 241 of 452 (876673)
05-25-2020 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by GDR
05-24-2020 12:19 PM


GDR writes:
Nobody ever said there was meaning. Matter and energy provide information/data that can be measured.
But information IS meaning.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by GDR, posted 05-24-2020 12:19 PM GDR has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 242 of 452 (876685)
05-25-2020 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by ringo
05-23-2020 1:13 PM


Exactly. Because it is CREATED within the individual mind based on the unique set of inputs received by that mind.
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 05-23-2020 1:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by ringo, posted 05-25-2020 4:45 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 243 of 452 (876686)
05-25-2020 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by AZPaul3
05-23-2020 8:00 AM


There is no information in DNA.
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.
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.
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.
The information is in the mind observing the regularity, the repeatability, of that cascade.
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.
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 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.
Of course the arrangement of matter/energy must and can only be as allowed and constrained by physics.
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.
There is no other known power in the universe that can order/form/constrain particles and forces other than the laws of 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by AZPaul3, posted 05-23-2020 8:00 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by AZPaul3, posted 05-26-2020 1:10 AM WookieeB has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 244 of 452 (876688)
05-25-2020 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by WookieeB
05-25-2020 4:29 PM


Wookie B writes:
The thing created in the mind can not be the same thing that is input.
I didn't say it was. I said that the information is created IN the mind FROM the inputs.
Wookie B writes:
If there are a "unique set of inputs" (which is the information)...
No, the inputs are not information. Information is what the mind creates from the inputs
WookieB writes:
... the information is external, imprinted on matter...
You have not presented anything to support that claim.
Wookie B writes:
If every copy of Macbeth was erased from every mind and every medium, then the information would be gone too.
That's what I've been saying. But you seem to be saying that the information exists independent of any mind or any medium. How is that possible?
Wookie B writes:
I never indicated that someone else should be able to "figure it out" again.
You said in this very post that "the information is external, imprinted on matter". If Shakespeare could somehow interpret that information from the matter, why can't somebody else do the same thing?

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by WookieeB, posted 05-25-2020 4:29 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by WookieeB, posted 05-25-2020 8:38 PM ringo has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 245 of 452 (876692)
05-25-2020 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by ringo
05-25-2020 4:45 PM


I didn't say it was. I said that the information is created IN the mind FROM the inputs.
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.
No, the inputs are not information. Information is what the mind creates from the inputs
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.
But you seem to be saying that the information exists independent of any mind or any medium. How is that possible?
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.
You said in this very post that "the information is external, imprinted on matter". If Shakespeare could somehow interpret that information from the matter, why can't somebody else do the same thing?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by ringo, posted 05-25-2020 4:45 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by ringo, posted 05-26-2020 4:56 PM WookieeB has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 246 of 452 (876694)
05-26-2020 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by WookieeB
05-25-2020 4:30 PM


There is no information in DNA.
Oh really? I guess we need to inform the doctors of the National Institute of Health ...
For human understanding it is almost universally accepted to speak of DNA as symbolic characters like letters in a book. Because the abstract meaning of those molecules and the chemical cascades they initiate are agreed to by us humans (information we developed by observation) we say that, symbolically, DNA carries the information with it. This has become so ubiquitous in our culture that far too many people, even in the scientific community, take the symbolic carrying as literal carrying.
A DNA codon does not carry any more information on genetics than a rock sitting on the ground carries the equations of General Relativity or a lecture on silicate chemistry.
Knowledge/data/information is determined only by experience derived from our physical senses and perceptions and our creative abstract thinking. It is all in our brains and only in our brains.
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's because DNA is not one molecule but is quite an arrangement of different specific molecules which causes quite an arrangement of different specific cascades depending upon quite an arrangement of different specific sets of molecules.
The arrangement of Adenine-Guanine-Cytosine on the mRNA molecule has no choice but to bind with the tRNA holding the amino acid Serine. This is part of the chemical cascade from DNA transcription to mRNA to tRNA to serine to protein. Each molecule is involved in many very specific cascades. And when a very specific set of molecules is present then a very specific cascade of reactions follows.
Do I really need to get this pedantic with you?
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’s right. And every time that specific arrangement of molecules occurs under the proper conditions in the cell the same very specific interactions, the chemical cascade, must and will take place.
That the arrangment is the result of mindless physics is still yet to be demonstrated.
Bullshit. It's physics all the way down. Do your research.
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.
No, the cellular machinery that does the transcription and translation and building of proteins is blindly following the reaction requirements of its chemical constituents. It no more understands the symbology of information than a corn cob understands a score of Chopin.
Yes, I agree. But as matter is "allowed" to be, or "constrained" by physics, the arrangement is not necessarily determined by physics.
Of course it is. Physics is the only force known in the universe that can determine, down to the subatomic constituents, the very form, function, position, action, reaction, existence and arrangement of anything/everything matter/energy.
But it is not physics that is determining the information
Of course it is. The mind is an emergent property of the brain and the brain is a physical object of complex physical interconnections and complex electro-chemical interactions. Data/information are human constructs, products of the mind. Data/information is determined only by experience derived from our physical senses and perceptions and the creative abstract thinking of which our minds are capable.
External copies symbolizing some information (marks pressed into clay, electrical impulses in crystals) are not dependent on the form of the matter used as a carrier for its symbolic meaning. It merely carries markings.
The data/information rests in the form of the matter within the human mind that agrees to the symbology of the markings and their meaning. The physical matter of the mind is the only place where the information resides. Not in the markings on the clay nor in the book nor in the double helix of the cell.
There is no other known power in the universe that can order/form/constrain particles and forces other than the laws of 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.
So in your world emergent properties leading to creative abstract thinking do not exist. How dull.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by WookieeB, posted 05-25-2020 4:30 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by WookieeB, posted 05-27-2020 2:35 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 247 of 452 (876709)
05-26-2020 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by ringo
05-22-2020 3:58 PM


Re: Re-Admin(151): My response to feedback
To Richard:
ringo writes:
Maybe spend less time analyzing what you need to reply to and more time replying.
What he said.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ringo, posted 05-22-2020 3:58 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 248 of 452 (876710)
05-26-2020 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Richard L. Wang
05-22-2020 4:01 PM


Re: What is a good topic?
Richard L. Wang writes:
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.
If you continue ignoring moderator feedback and insisting on charting your own somewhat unintelligible course, nothing's getting promoted. I don't have hours of time to analyze your cryptic stuff trying to figure it out.
Please stop referring to messages as, for example, Admin(151). You can link directly to messages with [msg=151], which becomes Message 151.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-22-2020 4:01 PM Richard L. Wang has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2020 12:52 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 249 of 452 (876711)
05-26-2020 9:59 AM


Moderator Suggestion Regarding Information
This is a suggestion, there's no need to follow it.
I'd like to suggest that no progress will be made in discussions about information until a common and unambiguous definition is adopted, one where information can be quantified. I propose using the definition of information used by Information theory - Wikipedia.
Here's Shannon's original paper introducing the field of information theory: A Mathematical Theory of Communication. He makes a key statement at one point:
quote:
The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.
Shannon's focus is communication of information (he worked for Bell Labs, the nation's dominant telephone company at the time), so he goes on to define information in a rigorous and mathematical way.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by AZPaul3, posted 05-26-2020 2:30 PM Admin has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 250 of 452 (876713)
05-26-2020 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Admin
05-26-2020 9:41 AM


Re: What is a good topic?
It would help if he asked a question that can’t be trivially answered with a yes.
Natural processes follow natural law. If there are supernatural processes they aren’t part of biology.
He also hasn’t grasped the significance of the player piano. Information in itself does nothing (it’s an abstract object, they don’t do anything). In the case of genes it’s much the same - everything is done by the interaction of the chemical structure of the DNA and it’s immediate environment. All according to natural law.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Admin, posted 05-26-2020 9:41 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 251 of 452 (876714)
05-26-2020 2:03 PM


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

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: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 252 of 452 (876715)
05-26-2020 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Admin
05-26-2020 9:59 AM


Re: Moderator Suggestion Regarding Information
Shannon’s definition of information is actually quite simple: binary.
The rest of his paper deals with converting the original message to a symbolic representation then sampling that representation at periodic intervals to determine what will be placed on the channel to be transmitted in yet another symbolic form to a receiver that must be in agreement with the symbologies used in order to accurately reverse the process. The real heavy math in his work is not about defining information (which he uses interchangeably with message) but in sampling, symbol probability and entropy, channel throughput and error under the various transmission modalities he outlines.
A second issue with Shannon is that he had no concern for the meaningful content of the message, its origin or its use. His concerns were limited to the symbology used and the technology of faithfully transmitting that symbology point-to-point.
This discussion, however, is heavily concerned with the meaningful content of the information especially as to its origination and use.
If this is the definition of information you suggest we use then I have no issue as long as everyone understands that Shannon information is a chopped-up, sliced and diced, facsimile of the original information, devoid of content, that was originally created in the mind and is in no way to be taken as originating from the facsimile.
I will call DNA a code and I will call the DNA code information as long it is understood that the DNA code is a symbolic representation of the information that originated via observation by, and was put to measure in, the human mind.
I will imagine that in the cell above each codon is a cartoon speech bubble detailing the A, C, G, T, U molecules involved and the molecular cascade they are meant to represent down to the amino acid. And they’ll be color coded. With emojis.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Admin, posted 05-26-2020 9:59 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Admin, posted 05-31-2020 9:06 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 253 of 452 (876716)
05-26-2020 2:40 PM


What if Consciousness Comes First?
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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2020 3:09 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 254 of 452 (876717)
05-26-2020 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by GDR
05-26-2020 2:40 PM


Re: What if Consciousness Comes First?
quote:
It does appear to me that this view does make sense of our world in so many ways.
It doesn’t even make sense:
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
Relational and dispositional properties don’t need meaning. So, no there doesn’t have to be anything in the universe to give them meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by GDR, posted 05-26-2020 2:40 PM GDR has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 255 of 452 (876719)
05-26-2020 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by WookieeB
05-25-2020 8:38 PM


WookieB writes:
The information is abstract, not determined by the matter
You're making that assumption but you have not shown that that is true.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by WookieeB, posted 05-25-2020 8:38 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by WookieeB, posted 05-26-2020 7:13 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024