Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 256 of 452 (876728)
05-26-2020 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by ringo
05-26-2020 4:56 PM


ringo writes:
WookieeB 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 suppose that is true, it is an assumption. But it is also an assumption by you that it is determined by the matter.
I suppose I'm taking a more parsimonious position based on the lack of evidence that information is determined by the matter. As my position is a negative one, falsifying that depends on proving the positive antithesis.
Get to work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by ringo, posted 05-26-2020 4:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by ringo, posted 05-26-2020 7:24 PM WookieeB has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 257 of 452 (876730)
05-26-2020 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by WookieeB
05-26-2020 7:13 PM


Wookie B writes:
But it is also an assumption by you that it is determined by the matter.
That's the normal default assumption. We assume that there are no unicorns until there is evidence that there are unicorns.
Wookie B writes:
I suppose I'm taking a more parsimonious position based on the lack of evidence that information is determined by the matter.
You have it backwards. The more parsimonious position is that the matter is simply arranged as it is - i.e. there is no voodoo information "engraved" on it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by WookieeB, posted 05-26-2020 7:13 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by WookieeB, posted 05-27-2020 10:21 AM ringo has replied

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


(1)
Message 258 of 452 (876746)
05-27-2020 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by ringo
05-26-2020 7:24 PM


Ringo writes:
WookieeB writes:
But it is also an assumption by you that it is determined by the matter.
That's the normal default assumption. We assume that there are no unicorns until there is evidence that there are unicorns.
You're logic is failing.
From the discussion, the "it", information, exists. That is not being disputed.
What is in question is what "it is determined by. In other words, where does information come from?
You, and others, have inferred that it comes solely from the laws of matter. That is the unicorn. I am taking the default position that there is no evidence of your unicorn.
Show me the unicorn.
You have it backwards. The more parsimonious position is that the matter is simply arranged as it is - i.e. there is no voodoo information "engraved" on it
Ahh, but you are now trying to change the game. That 'matter is arranged as it is' is a tautology. That matter can carry information should be undisputed. Otherwise, there is no reason for you to be looking at a computer screen, as you could never get my reply (information) from looking at it.
So, back to the real game. What law of matter determines the information? Parsimony is that I'm not buying the unicorn till I see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by ringo, posted 05-26-2020 7:24 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 05-27-2020 11:24 AM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 260 by ringo, posted 05-27-2020 11:46 AM WookieeB has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 259 of 452 (876747)
05-27-2020 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by WookieeB
05-27-2020 10:21 AM


there is no unicorn
There is no unicorn.
There is only natural laws and natural processes. The proof of that is that a machine, that has nothing but natural processes can count the onions in the field or determine when to water or determine the current temperature or read Macbeth or ...
There is no evidence of anything other than natural processes and natural things.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by WookieeB, posted 05-27-2020 10:21 AM WookieeB has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 260 of 452 (876748)
05-27-2020 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by WookieeB
05-27-2020 10:21 AM


Wookie B writes:
You, and others, have inferred that it comes solely from the laws of matter. That is the unicorn.
No.
We know that matter exists. We do NOT know that there is any "information" independent of the matter. The unicorn, which does not exist, is the mysterious source of independent information. That's YOUR UNICORN. We have no evidence that that exists.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by WookieeB, posted 05-27-2020 10:21 AM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by WookieeB, posted 05-27-2020 2:55 PM ringo has replied

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


(1)
Message 261 of 452 (876755)
05-27-2020 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by AZPaul3
05-26-2020 1:10 AM


Sorry, I have to break this down.
AZPaul3 writes:
For human understanding it is almost universally accepted to speak of DNA as symbolic characters like letters in a book.
So, a letters in a book can convey information, and that is almost universally accepted. That DNA acts in the same manner, that is is able to convey information, is also almost universally accepted. Can we agree this is the normal understanding and usage of language to describe it?
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.
You used an important word in there - "symbolically". A symbol represents something, but it itself is not that something. The DNA, in its particular configuration, represents the information. The DNA itself is not the information. And I think most people realize that.
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.
Thus, I then disagree with this statement. I do not think most people are referring to a "literal" carrying. A literal carry means that the information is physical, but if it is abstract, then it is not physical. Most people realize that the information is not the matter, and thus think that the matter is doing a "symbolic" 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.
You're equivocating here. Nobody is saying, either literally or symbolically, a rock sitting on the ground carries the equations or a lecture. [The only exception would be if someone happened to inscribe the equations or lecture on the rock in some symbol form, and then it might be said to "symbolically" be carrying it, but not "literally". But I doubt that is the picture you are painting here]. But I would say, and probably most people, that the DNA codon does "symbolically" carry genetic information.
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.
So, if we assume for a moment this is true, that information is only in the mind, then what do you call the particular arrangement of matter that leads to specific results that is apart from the mind? If not information/data, then what is that thing apart from the mind called?
But I don't really think that information is really only in the mind. I do think that a mind is responsible for creating meaningful information, but that information is not restricted to the matter of the mind only. I think it is quite obvious, through various types of symbolism, that information can be transferred via non-mind matter. You may want to call it something else when it is outside of the mind, but I think it's almost universally accepted by everyone else to still call it: information.
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.
Yes, we all know this. But you mention "arrangement" 4 times, and refer to "specific" molecules or cascades 3 times. What accounts for that "arrangement" or 'specificity' is the question. Per your a priori materialistic philosophy, you have no choice but to rely on the magik of "physics".
A codon of three nucleotides, that is part of a symbol system, that interacts with a different set of molecules that also involve a distinctly separate symbol system is all chemistry. But where that code symbol system comes from is what has to be explained. Appealing to just "physics" is not an explanatory answer.
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.
Again, it is not the chemistry that is in question. Nobody is making the claim that the cellular machinery understands anything. That x reacts with y is trivial. That x understands y is not a claim anyone is making. That x even understands x is not a claim anyone is making.
But why x? Why that particular arrangement of matter? There is nothing in the properties of the matter itself that account for that arrangment. And if you extend it out, noting that specifically x via a symbol system makes specifically y which then via a different symbol system makes specifically z, which then goes on to do more specific stuff, you can chalk up all the chemical reactions to physics. But the symbol system is integral to the process and for answering the "why", and physics doesnt explain the symbol system, nor where the configuration of x came from.
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.
So you are here at least admitting that there are external copies of something (form matters not) that carries a symbolic meaning. This is all external to the mind.
Yet you then equivocate a definition of information that is not normal. If the information is only in the mind, yet externally there is something symbolizing that mind-only information, what do you call that external set of symbols that carry meaning? And frankly, what is it about the supposed matter of the mind that holds a symbolic meaning any different than other matter that also holds the symbolic meaning? Is it just some move-the-goalposts other emergent property of the brain?
When people speak of information, they are not only referring to whatever understanding is in the mind. Information is not limited to just the mind, otherwise no learning could be done. You yourself advised me to "Do your research". If supposedly that information that you want me to seek is only allowed in my mind, then it only makes sense that there is some other arrangement of symbols external to my mind that my senses can convey to my mind to 'create' information. What you call that external stuff you have yet to define. For most other people, they call it "information".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by AZPaul3, posted 05-26-2020 1:10 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by AZPaul3, posted 05-29-2020 12:47 AM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 284 by Taq, posted 05-29-2020 11:05 AM WookieeB has replied

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


Message 262 of 452 (876756)
05-27-2020 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by ringo
05-27-2020 11:46 AM


We know that matter exists. We do NOT know that there is any "information" independent of the matter. The unicorn, which does not exist, is the mysterious source of independent information. That's YOUR UNICORN. We have no evidence that that exists.
You are moving the goal-posts. We are not discussing what you refer to as 'my unicorn': the source of independent information, (though I have already indicated what that is in my posts).
Matter exists. Information exists. I think we both agree on that.
But that information is independent of the matter is the question. Your claim is that information depends on matter (physics). Being that information is an abstract thing that can be symbolized on matter (yes even outside the brain), I do not see any evidence (unicorn) that it is determined by the matter. Since your claim is dependent on evidence, and my claim is dependent on no evidence, the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Show me your unicorn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by ringo, posted 05-27-2020 11:46 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by ringo, posted 05-27-2020 4:03 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 268 by Taq, posted 05-27-2020 6:05 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 263 of 452 (876757)
05-27-2020 3:18 PM


Bioinformatic processes don’t obey the natural laws
It seems to me that this thread NvC-1 is a site to discuss with your guys at present, although the topics are far beyond the NvC-1 original topic.
I’m interested in reading the recent messages of PaulK, WookieeB, AZPaul3, ringo, GDR, Tangle and Ben!. Let me first outline my general idea.
AZPaul3(252) well analyzes Shannon’s theory of information communication, and points that
quote:
This discussion, however, is heavily concerned with the meaningful content of the information especially as to its origination and use.
Yes, information has meaning. In fact, the word information itself implies that it contains some meaning. If there is no meaning, why do people make information?
Why do people make information? It’s for communication. A person produces a message because she/he wants to tell a story, or give someone an instruction, or describe a fact, or ask someone or herself/himself a question.
In order to that information communicates successfully, that is, the info-receiver knows the meaning of the info-sender, the information must follow certain rules. The messages in this Forum are written in English. You write your message according to the rules of English vocabulary and grammar. I read your message according to the same rules: English vocabulary and grammar, so I understand your message and can discuss it with you.
So, information obeys its own rules, not the natural laws.
Furthermore, the bioinformatic processes in our brain should not follow the natural laws. These bioinformatic processes include all processes related to language, math operation 1+1=2, and thinking about how to make PaulK(219)’s player piano, but these bioinformatic processes are too complex to discuss further.
Let’s discuss gene, the protein-coding sequence in DNA.
1. Gene contains information about how to make the right protein;
2. Gene information is used for communication: DNA instructs ribosome to synthesize the right protein through mRNA;
3. The communication follows the rule — The Genetic Code;
4. It is clear that the bioinformatic process — translation — obeys the Genetic Code, not the natural laws.
For example, the gene in DNA is ATG-AAA-CGA-TAG, which is transcribed into mRNA to become AUG-UUU-CGA-UAG. The instructions given to ribosome by DNA through mRNA are:
1. When AUG is found, get an amino-acid Met and start synthesizing
2. When UUU arrives, get an amino-acid Phe and form a peptide bond with Met
3. When CGA arrives, get an amino-acid Arg and form a peptide bond with Phe
4. When UAG arrives, stop.
So, it is the Genetic Code, not the natural laws, to play a role in the translation process.

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2020 3:44 PM Richard L. Wang has replied
 Message 266 by Tangle, posted 05-27-2020 4:19 PM Richard L. Wang has replied
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 05-27-2020 5:56 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 264 of 452 (876760)
05-27-2020 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Richard L. Wang
05-27-2020 3:18 PM


Re: Bioinformatic processes don’t obey the natural laws
quote:
1. Gene contains information about how to make the right protein;
2. Gene information is used for communication: DNA instructs ribosome to synthesize the right protein through mRNA;
3. The communication follows the rule — The Genetic Code;
4. It is clear that the bioinformatic process — translation — obeys the Genetic Code, not the natural laws.
The translation obeys natural laws. It is a purely chemical process - the abstract information does nothing, it is the actual chemical sequence and it’s interaction with the other chemicals surrounding it that does the work. All according to natural law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-27-2020 3:18 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-28-2020 12:10 PM PaulK has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 265 of 452 (876761)
05-27-2020 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by WookieeB
05-27-2020 2:55 PM


WookieB writes:
You are moving the goal-posts. We are not discussing what you refer to as 'my unicorn': the source of independent information...
Not at all. For the purpose of this discussion, what matters is whether or not that independent information exists. You need to provide evidence that it does.
Wookie B writes:
Being that information is an abstract thing that can be symbolized on matter (yes even outside the brain), I do not see any evidence (unicorn) that it is determined by the matter.
That's circular: assuming that information is independent from matter, you conclude that information is independent from matter.
Wookie B writes:
Since your claim is dependent on evidence, and my claim is dependent on no evidence, the onus is on you to provide the evidence.
There is no evidence, which is my claim. You need to provide evidence that information is independent from matter.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by WookieeB, posted 05-27-2020 2:55 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by WookieeB, posted 05-27-2020 6:14 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 266 of 452 (876763)
05-27-2020 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Richard L. Wang
05-27-2020 3:18 PM


Re: Bioinformatic processes don’t obey the natural laws
RLW writes:
So, information obeys its own rules, not the natural laws.
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.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-27-2020 3:18 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-28-2020 12:13 PM Tangle has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 267 of 452 (876764)
05-27-2020 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Richard L. Wang
05-27-2020 3:18 PM


Re: Bioinformatic processes don’t obey the natural laws
RLW writes:
Yes, information has meaning. In fact, the word information itself implies that it contains some meaning. If there is no meaning, why do people make information?
Matter and energy in its own basic form has information. A single quantum particle can have momentum, charge, spin, placement, and size, all of which is information.
"Physical information is a form of information. In physics, it refers to the information of a physical system. Physical information is an important concept used in a number of fields of study in physics. For example, in quantum mechanics, the form of physical information known as quantum information is used in many descriptions of quantum phenomena, such as quantum observation, quantum entanglement and the causal relationship between quantum objects that carry out either or both close and long-range interactions with one another.
In a general sense, information is that which resolves uncertainty, which is due to the fact that it describes the details of that which is associated with the uncertainty. The description itself is, however, divorced from any type of language."
Physical information - Wikipedia
So, information obeys its own rules, not the natural laws.
Natural laws are what creates information.
For example, the gene in DNA is ATG-AAA-CGA-TAG, which is transcribed into mRNA to become AUG-UUU-CGA-UAG. The instructions given to ribosome by DNA through mRNA are:
1. When AUG is found, get an amino-acid Met and start synthesizing
2. When UUU arrives, get an amino-acid Phe and form a peptide bond with Met
3. When CGA arrives, get an amino-acid Arg and form a peptide bond with Phe
4. When UAG arrives, stop.
So, it is the Genetic Code, not the natural laws, to play a role in the translation process.
You need to take a course on biochemistry and genetics. It is the natural laws of hydrogen bonding that governs the binding between the complementary bases in the tRNA and the mRNA codon.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-27-2020 3:18 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-28-2020 12:16 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 268 of 452 (876765)
05-27-2020 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by WookieeB
05-27-2020 2:55 PM


WookieeB writes:
Being that information is an abstract thing that can be symbolized on matter (yes even outside the brain), I do not see any evidence (unicorn) that it is determined by the matter.
Functioning brains are matter and energy. What we write is matter and energy. What we say is matter and energy. It's all physical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by WookieeB, posted 05-27-2020 2:55 PM WookieeB has not replied

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


Message 269 of 452 (876766)
05-27-2020 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by ringo
05-27-2020 4:03 PM


Ringo writes:
WookieeB writes:
Ringo writes:
The unicorn, which does not exist, is the mysterious source of independent information.
We are not discussing what you refer to as 'my unicorn': the source of independent information
For the purpose of this discussion, what matters is whether or not that independent information exists. You need to provide evidence that it does.
First a point of order. You are again switching the subject that is under question. Whereas your last prior post stated the subject was about the source of independent information, as I pointed out the subject wasn't about the source, but that independent information exists. So, now that you are back to talking about the existence of it.... Good, stay there.
As for evidence, I have already provided it, with numerous examples. The information that distinctly makes up Macbeth, did exist in the mind of Shakespeare. When he wrote it down the information, it existed on (not as) ink and paper. When it was spoken and acted in a play, it was embedded in the sound waves. Today we can take a written record, have it scanned into some electronic equipment that will then audibly read the play, which can then be heard by yet another device that converts the sound waves to be represented by electromagnetic and/or light symbols and transmitted to yet another device that can receive those signals and convert them to a form that literally imprints the symbols onto a 3D form of matter (via 3d printer) in a language completely different than English. So from Shakespeare's mind to the last iteration, there are at least 8 different symbol systems and just as many different types of matter/energy involved even before another mind "reads" it. There is nothing about the matter in the entire chain that itself defined the symbol system nor the arrangement of matter that conformed to a symbol system. Information, the message, was represented on matter, but it was not the matter that determined the message. That is how information is independent of matter.
And that is how almost universally information is understood. In none of the normal definitions of information used, is information restricted to the mind. It is referred to, all over the place, by being an abstract message that is carried on matter but not the matter itself.
So if you think it is not information when found on non-brain matter, you are using some hyper-restrictive definition of information that is not used or understood by most people. You, like AZPAUL3, will also have to define a term for the specific arrangement of matter apart from a brain that produces specific effects. Cause I assure you, it undoubtedly is not a term that most people use.
That's circular: assuming that information is independent from matter, you conclude that information is independent from matter.
Fair point. So to re-word it. There is no evidence that meaningful information is dependent on matter. I cannot produce anything less than no evidence, so the only other direction is to prove positive evidence that information is dependent on matter. That's your job.
There is no evidence, which is my claim. You need to provide evidence that information is independent from matter.
Here's a little help. Independent means 'not dependent'. So, if your claim is that there is no evidence that information is 'not dependent' on matter, that means there is evidence that information is not 'not dependent' on matter, or that there is evidence that information is dependent on matter. Onus on you. Have fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ringo, posted 05-27-2020 4:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Taq, posted 05-27-2020 6:28 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 274 by ringo, posted 05-28-2020 12:24 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 270 of 452 (876767)
05-27-2020 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by WookieeB
05-27-2020 6:14 PM


As for evidence, I have already provided it, with numerous examples. The information that distinctly makes up Macbeth, did exist in the mind of Shakespeare. When he wrote it down the information, it existed on (not as) ink and paper. When it was spoken and acted in a play, it was embedded in the sound waves. Today we can take a written record, have it scanned into some electronic equipment that will then audibly read the play, which can then be heard by yet another device that converts the sound waves to be represented by electromagnetic and/or light symbols and transmitted to yet another device that can receive those signals and convert them to a form that literally imprints the symbols onto a 3D form of matter (via 3d printer) in a language completely different than English. So from Shakespeare's mind to the last iteration, there are at least 8 different symbol systems and just as many different types of matter/energy involved even before another mind "reads" it. There is nothing about the matter in the entire chain that itself defined the symbol system nor the arrangement of matter that conformed to a symbol system. Information, the message, was represented on matter, but it was not the matter that determined the message. That is how information is independent of matter.
Take away all matter and energy from all of the things you mention and the information goes away. It is entirely dependent on matter and energy, from the physical structure of the brain to the physical structure of letters on a page.
Human abstractions are still made of matter and energy. They are processed by the brain through matter and energy. Every single step is derived from physical information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by WookieeB, posted 05-27-2020 6:14 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by WookieeB, posted 05-28-2020 4:01 PM Taq 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