Information and purpose or no purpose.

Proposing a new thread on the purpose and meaning of information vs. it's non-meaning and non-purpose. Trying to honor the Topic requirements.In message 136 of the thread Abiogenesis http://EvC Forum: Abiogenesis -->EvC Forum: Abiogenesis
Doddy writes the following: ---------------------------------- Rob's Reply:Doddy, you've raised questions that really belong in another topic. So here it is, if the Admins are willing.All of your talk of purpose and meaning must assume one of two things: Was existence created by intelligence or not?I say yes... you say no. that's where the difference lies.What you and Dawkins say is true under your assumptions. But there are some dominoes that fall as a result of those assumptions that are plainly unacceptable in moral terms. I'll only hint at it here.I have a couple questions:What is your purpose for saying there is no purpose?
Why do you say all of this has no intrinsic meaning?I ask, because as you said, it is intelligence (us) that infers meaning and purpose. And you do have a meaning and purpose for seeing it the way you do. Yours is not a neutral worldview (though you preach it as such).There was a man who answered such questions. His name is Aldous Huxley. In his book 'Ends and Means', he was curtious enough to mechanically confess his motives. And why not? It is not as though it matters in the end whether we are honest or not, because as Bertrand Russel said of our existence, 'It's just there'! And as Dawkins said, 'There's no such thing as good and bad. We're all just dancing to our DNA'.Consider Huxley's honesty and please do respond if it is meaningful to you. (Aldous Huxley / Ends and Means)Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Deferring to Admin Nosy for further clarification and elaboration on the topic at hand....Edited by AdminPhat, :

This seems to have gotten killed by the promtion AdminPhat gave it.I think it is good that you noticed a off topic issue that needed to be disscussed but:My issues are:
1) It can not be assigned to a thread until we understand what the point is.2) It appears to me that the heart of the matter is re expressed by Doddy in Message 135 which you didn't respond to.3) Part of the issue is the mixing of purpose with anything else. You seemed to think (in the other thread ) that purpose was in some way intrinsic.Here you seem to agree with Doddy that purpose is only assigned by some agent. You think a god is that agent, he doesn't.Your Huxley quote further supports that. Huxley, as an agent, decides not to assign purpose to the world for his own reasons. Others might decide to assign purpose for their own reasons as you do.In the other thread, once it is agreed that purpose is assigned only by an intelligent agent you can leave it out of that discussion.If you intended this to have any relevance to the abiogenesis question then you'll have to clarify that a lot here.If not then make what you do intend to discuss a lot clearer please.

Nosy:So you think I have a purpose for this topic?Do you have a purpose for not promoting it?If so, why is your purpose more valid so as to sit in judgement over who's ideas are credible, and who's are not?This thread is to be about information and purpose in general. It is not something specific to 'abiogenesis'.Where do you think this subject will lead?Is it not clear that my position is, Information has an intrinsic purpose?I wish to debate this assertion of mine with anyone.Is that a violation?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Well, we kinda hope you do don't we? Until it is clear what you want to do with this thread my purpose in not promoting it is to stop disorganized OPs from becoming more disorganized threads.Now that you make clear it is a general discussion of information and purpose and you say that information has an intrinsic purpose perhaps you can get the thread off to a more substantial start by giving some of your support for that position.It would also help if you would suggest what thread it should go in.

Nosy:I think I showed my position very well in the response given in message 1.That 'information has intrinsic purpose' is not something one proves Nosy...Don't you get it yet?It is something you cannot deny without affirming it at the same time.'Unaffirmability as a test for falsehood'Have you ever presented information without a purpose in mind Nosy?Do you have no 'ends' in mind by sharing your understanding?
No worldview to promote?
Is yours a neutral position?Then promote the topic...No?Then you understand my position. You're just not conscious of it...If you have any curiosity or inclination for promoting the topic (which you do not), I think you should be satisfied to know, that no-one in their 'right mind' would assert otherwise.Do you see?I don't need to debate this issue... It is not debatable.I am only establishing a fact: Information Has Intrinsic Purpose.That is why, it is created.

Since I am not capable of comprehending your deep insights I'll just leave this for someone else who can.I had thought you'd go from a useful definition of information and then show why it has purpose but you seem (as best as I can follow)to simply asserting something without any support.Since you've finished with the assertion and have told me that you don't want to support it there is obviously no need for any further discussion and the thread is finished with. But since it is probably just my lack of insight I'll leave it to be promoted by someone who has those insights (or operates with a mind set that think saying something makes it true.)

Nosy:Do you wish to challenge my assertion that 'information has intrinsic purpose'?Please feel free to do so. Perhaps then we can test... whether or not it is true.All you have to do... is affirm that information has 'no purpose'. To which I will respond, 'then why are you telling me'?So I have already given you all my ammo...There is nothing 'deep' about it Nosy. It is astonishingly simple.If you promote it, then at least you can see how Doddy responds...Maybe you'll get lucky, and he'll turn out to be as talented as jar, Ringo, Razd, and Archer in completely turning the issues inside out.Even I am astonished at the ability of some... to cast 'almost' insoluble spells (with all due respect, you're 'not' one of them).Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Since I don't see that you have defined "information" or "purpose" yet you haven't actually said anything that can be discussed.The only useful definition of "information" that allows it to be pinned down at all does not include any purpose at all. Obviously you have a different definition. Until you define your terms no one can discuss it with you. When you have given us your personal definitions (written clearly enough to be comprehensible) then maybe you'll have a viable OP.

Hi Rob,In Message 7 Nosy appeared to be requesting the assistance of another moderator, so let me see if I can help.I think I probably have the same problem with this that Nosy did: Your position is that one doesn't prove (i.e., support with evidence and argument) that "information has intrinsic purpose", so since discussion in the science threads is built around supporting positions with evidence and argument, what would be the point of discussion? Why would we promote a thread proposal that advances a position that the author states up front can't be supported with evidence and argument?Your thread proposal was actually excellent, but unlike Nosy I wasn't familiar with the thread from which it sprang, and it only took him a couple messages to elicit your admission that you had no evidence/argument for your position, indeed felt it needed no such thing, that it was obvious, but I might still have uncovered this myself. Your proclivity for introducing religious arguments into science threads prompts moderators to first make certain you have some understanding of any topic you propose.If you're interested you could look up information theory (the real theory, not the Dembski/Gitt ones) so that you understand why information theory doesn't hold purpose to be inherent in information. This isn't to convince you, but just so that you understand the science in order to help you formulate actual arguments against it.Edited by Admin, : Fix grammar, add to the Rob quote.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Nosy:Seriously?If so... that is because it's 'purpose' is synonomous, with 'useful'. The two are inseperable, so honestly... you'll have to re-work that last part. Without purpose, information would be 'useless' (like your statement sir). Contradictions like the one you just offered are essentially meaningless. Can you see it?Can you not see even when it is pointed out, that your statement is a logical suicide?You've pinned it down quite nicely I think... even though it is still not being perceived by you.I remember when half of my thoughts were subconscious too. And I'll never forget waking up. I am not trying to insult you. Let's look at another of your comments. Won't you even consider trusting me? Please think about it.Nosy:No no no, yours is just fine... I accept! Seriously...Information always has meaning and purpose. It allows us to discuss ideas which we are already doing. That is what makes it useful.I don't understand why it is so difficult to see these false dichotomies. Though I confess that I only saw them after coming to Christ.But now that they are being pointed out, can you still not comprehend? Wake up Nosy, your smarter than 'the magicians'. And your far more honest I think. Open your eyes."Lazarus, come forth!"Information that is stripped of it's purpose is 'nothing'. It is like math that does not add up. It is 'useless'.And that is what subconsciously crafted lies cleverly deceive us to follow around in darkness. We don't even know what we're saying in such a state of mind.Information is powerful. There is nothing that has more power than information.It closest competitor is twisted information. And even though it is false, and does not compute, it is consumed by those eager to frolic in the abyss of blissful ignorance.Ignorance is not bliss. It is the road to hell and tyranny.In a discussion of his book, 'The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror', Natan Sharansky speaks about the power of truth (information) as weilded by Andrei Sakharov.Sharansky says: (Just a moment...)

Admin:C'mon Percy... You are WAY smarter than that!It's a nice theory (for moralliy destitute magicians), but let me get this straight...The theories purpose... 'is to deny'... it's own power?
It denies it's own explanatory purpose?That concept is a non-statement.
It is anti-theo.
It does not exist.We can't pull the rug out from under our own feet, and then pretend we are standing upon anything.People who posit such ideas have thier feet firmly planted in mid-air.You expect me to believe that that is a purposeless theory?Do you believe that?That is extraordinarily bad 'theo'. A logical absurdity if ever if ever an absurdity there was. And it doesn't take a wiz to see it.Such 'theo' is constructed, by intelligent agents, for a very specific purpose... And that is, to 'deny intelligence' altogether (in the ultimate and sovereign sense), so as to remain within the illusions of their own autonomy, and thereby secure phantasmal visions of moral liberty.But by splitting hairs (creating false dichotomies), they have cut the very legs of power out from under themselves. Their own explanatory power 'of the spoken word', is a non-entity. It is an imposter. Truth becomes a lie...Imagine!"If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all." C.S. Lewis- The Abolition of ManEdited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Hi Rob,This is from Claude Shannon's landmark paper (A Mathematical Theory of Communication) that was the beginning of modern information theory: What modern information theory does is divorce human meaning, motivation and interpretation from the engineering problem of information itself, which from a scientific standpoint is very rigorous and mathematical.I tell you this not to get into a debate in a thread proposal, but to help you get to a point where you're not left claiming things like, "I don't need to debate this issue... It is not debatable." You're just striking out blindly right now because you're not yet familiar with what information theory actually says, and I'm not going to promote a thread proposal where the proposer thinks there's nothing to debate, isn't familiar with the subject area, and is someone who has great difficulty staying on topic.Please do not continue introducing this issue into other threads where it is off-topic, as you have just done at Message 7, or I will suspend you for four weeks.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Admin:Because here, we are dealing with more than some sterile and abstract discussion about information. We are discussing it's validity to begin with.I don't know how either of us can prove or give support for the concept that 'our words (information) have purpose'. It is simply assumed by both of us that we are speaking meaningfully. And we have reasons and agendas to promote in doing so. So purpose is essential. It is intrinsic.If it were not the case, neither of us would be trying to communicate anything. There would be no purpose for doing so.If 'information', in the strict abstract atmosphere you attempt to isolate it in (unsuccesfully I might add), were the actual case, then there would be no point in interpreting it in one way, and not the other.In such a reality, we wouldn't think about it at all. Butthat is not the case. Such a reality does not exist as evidence by the fact that we are interpreting reality by way of information. And we assume our interpretations to be purposeful and meaningful.If you take that assumption out from under yourself, then you are communicating, saying, and interpreting nothing.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Admin:Percy, if you actually believe that a human being can divorce himself from the purposes of his own modern theory, then what can I say?If this 'theory' was divorced from humanity, then it would not come from humanity...Gee wiz!If man were capable of completely divorcing himself from his own desire and ambition. And were able to soley devote Himself to reality for realities sake... then he would be God. And he would be our messiah.That by the way, is one solid 'theo'logical reason, why only God's Word can be objectively true. Because it is not tampered with by man. It may come through man, but not by man.And that is precisely why the Bible's language (Christ's Word) is so alien and offensive to men!If you want that which is divorced from, and untarnishable by humanities ambitions and biases... then you must look to that which transcends humanity.It cannot be totally divorced, or it would not be compatable. But it must be a 'higher' source.Never forget that reality and human beings are not mere numbers.Do I bring religion in?I ask how you intend to get it out, without being religious yourself?You cannot sperate God and science! God is science!As someone who claims to be a Christian, you should understand that. You should see guys like Shannon for what they are... demagogues.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.